Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Michael Pento: Actually,We're not Saving Yet Top
There seems to be much confusion lately about the consumer's increased savings rate and if this is a good or bad condition for the health of the U.S. economy. While many Austrian economists are lauding our new found predilection to save, the Administration is obsessing over forcing banks to increase lending and compelling consumers to step up their borrowing. It is factually correct to believe the U.S. consumer must embark on a protracted period of savings and reduced consumption in order to reconcile the decades of imbalances encouraged by the Fed and banking system. Unfortunately, the very idea of a newly-frugal consumer is a complete farce. According to the Bureau of Economic Research, Americans saved 1.8% of their disposable income in 2008. That equates to a total savings of $191.4 billion. And in another seemingly encouraging sign, consumers saved at an annual rate of 4.4% in January and at a 4.2% annual rate in February 2009. At the current pace, consumers would save $464.4 billion in this year. This has caused some economists to take heart that the excess consumption patterns of the past few decades have begun to reverse. However, the problem is that at the same time our government is busy ensuring that any private sector saving is more than offset by increased public debt. In 2008, the budget deficit was a then-record $438 billion. This year the budget deficit is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be $1.8 trillion--a four-fold increase! Thus, as a nation we have not saved a nickel. What most economists overlook is that all public debt is a direct obligation upon the consumer, meaning taxpayers--a much smaller universe than consumers, mind you--saw their debt burden increase by $246.6 billion last year and will watch it skyrocket by a projected $1,335.6 billion this year alone! What makes today's policy course such a travesty is that our government is creating this record-shattering debt in order to increase bank lending and to specifically reverse the positive recent trend in consumer savings. Thus, the Obama Administration is seamlessly taking the baton from the Bushies and is even more aggressively seeking to borrow our way out of debt and print our way back to prosperity. As long as savings is viewed as the problem and consumption is viewed as the solution, there we will be no escaping our economic malaise. Consumers may have finally begun to repent for their profligate ways, but as long as government annuls that effort we will still face all the ravaging effects from onerous debt. Our nation's debt now stands at over $11 trillion, with CBOE estimates suggesting it will grow by another $9.3 trillion over the next ten years. That is the perfect condition to engender yet higher rates of unemployment, along with increasing tax and interest rates. After the short-term euphoria wears off from the Obama stimulus packages, we'll be left to discover that we've not only squandered even more current and future savings, but that we have cooked up the perfect recipe for stagflation. Michael Pento is the Chief Economist for Delta Global Advisors and a contributor to greenfaucet.com
 
Mike Hegedus: Gee, 20? It and 'Idol' judges have 'jumped the shark' Top
'Broken record!' That's what someone in the audience yelled at the judges during the latest round of the 'American Idol' sing-off. Or was that someone at the G20 summit in London? No matter, they've both 'jumped the shark' in TV parlance--the G20 and the G8 and the 'Gee Whiz' of the 'American Idol' judges. 'Dog, it was all a little pitchy for me.' Who are the G20 anyway,and why are they in London? The Italian economy is how important to us exactly? Didn't we all agree that big corporate trips to Las Vegas were a waste of taxpayers money? Haven't we railed against perks like European junkets and lavish dinners? And what's with the private jet thing? That is so 2008. It's been reported that the leaders of the G20 will spend a grand total of 8 hours and 40 minutes together, including meals. How much did you get done at work yesterday in your 8 hours? Exactly. How much do you suppose these folks will accomplish? Oh, I'm missing the point you say? It's all a big show, a way to fly the flag of cooperation amoung nations, a place to introduce the new American President to the world. I say get him a Facebook page. There IS work being done of course on the global economy, just not in London. There are very smart people from all these countries and more trying to figure out a way to get our 'big blue marble' with its complicated, interlocked financial system back working again. Only better this time. But summit meetings like this accomplish little and this one in particular, with the world economy reeling, is poorly timed. Unless of course you like listening to the leader of France talk about financial responsibility while workers outside Paris hold thier boss hostage because they're pissed off about plant closings. I've heard that the last time a summit of this magnitude was held to address the global economy was in 1933. How did that work out? Summits are allot like World's Fairs, remember those? Or allot like the judges on 'American Idol'. What purpose do they serve? 'A poor choice of song', 'I hate your outfit', 'You need to get out of yourself more', did I mention it was a '..poor choice of song'? To prove just how little they matter, they unanimously slammed one poor blonde quasi-talent last week, telling her she was 'in trouble'. She wasn't. She came back and wasn't even in ' the bottom three'. Or was that the G20? 'Broken record' the guy yelled. Now that was 'dope'.
 
Kathy Freston: The Breathtaking Effects Of Cutting Back On Meat Top
I've written extensively on the consequences of eating meat - on our health , our sense of "right living" , and on the environment . It is one of those daily practices that has such a broad and deep effect that I think it merits looking at over and over again, from all the different perspectives. Sometimes, solutions to the world's biggest problems are right in front of us. The following statistics are eye-opening, to say the least. If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would save: ● 100 billion gallons of water, enough to supply all the homes in New England for almost 4 months; ● 1.5 billion pounds of crops otherwise fed to livestock, enough to feed the state of New Mexico for more than a year; ● 70 million gallons of gas--enough to fuel all the cars of Canada and Mexico combined with plenty to spare; ● 3 million acres of land, an area more than twice the size of Delaware; ● 33 tons of antibiotics. If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would prevent: ● Greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 1.2 million tons of CO2, as much as produced by all of France; ● 3 million tons of soil erosion and $70 million in resulting economic damages; ● 4.5 million tons of animal excrement; ● Almost 7 tons of ammonia emissions, a major air pollutant. My favorite statistic is this: According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads. See how easy it is to make an impact? Other points: Globally, we feed 756 million tons of grain to farmed animals. As Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer notes in his new book, if we fed that grain to the 1.4 billion people who are living in abject poverty, each of them would be provided more than half a ton of grain, or about 3 pounds of grain/day--that's twice the grain they would need to survive. And that doesn't even include the 225 million tons of soy that are produced every year, almost all of which is fed to farmed animals. He writes, "The world is not running out of food. The problem is that we--the relatively affluent--have found a way to consume four or five times as much food as would be possible, if we were to eat the crops we grow directly." A recent United Nations report titled Livestock's Long Shadow concluded that the meat industry causes almost 40% more greenhouse gas emissions than all the world's transportation systems--that's all the cars, trucks, SUVs, planes and ships in the world combined. The report also concluded that factory farming is one of the biggest contributors to the most serious environmental problems at every level--local and global. Researchers at the University of Chicago concluded that switching from standard American diet to a vegan diet is more effective in the fight against global warming than switching from a standard American car to a hybrid. In its report, the U.N. found that the meat industry causes local and global environmental problems even beyond global warming. It said that the meat industry should be a main focus in every discussion of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortages and pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Unattributed statistics were calculated from scientific reports by Noam Mohr, a physicist with the New York University Polytechnic Institute.
 
Linda Franklin: Executive Interns -- Reinventing Yourself over 40 Top
All of us are familiar with the traditional definition of an intern. It's usually a student that you invite into your business to lend a hand in exchange for course credit and some on-the-job training. However, these tough economic times is making it necessary for many women to re-enter the workforce. Now have Executive Interns, a new term coined to describe a woman over 40 applying for these positions that have entered the mainstream. It's a win/win situation. The company wins from the experience of the intern for little or no money. The intern learns wins by learning new skills that will prepare her for the next job. I myself was an intern. It wasn't easy to re-invent myself after so many years on Wall Street, but I thought it would be fun to try breaking into in the world of communication. I had zero experience in that field, so I had to figure out how I could get on-the-job training without any media background. That's when I came up with the idea of becoming an intern. I made the rounds of radio stations in New York City, and that led me to WNYC, the New York City public radio station. The Human Resources Department couldn't believe I wanted to be an intern, but after I sold them on the idea, they offered me a job. I started my new adventure by working every Tuesday as an assistant to the producers of The Brian Lehrer Show. My duties were to look for potential guests, cover local press conferences, and since Brian's show involved call-ins from listeners, I became their call screener. My intern position provided me with great exposure to the world of radio by doing a little bit of everything. My year as an intern was a gift. It made clear to me what I wanted to do next. It also gave me a sense of belonging, which I really missed. When I left I knew for certain that I would be starting a new career in communications. Now it's five years later. I am running my own communication company. My company's name is The Real Cougar Woman, and my audience is women over 40. My blog, radio show, and online women's community cover all concerns women have at this stage of their life. We cover topics from the fear of aging, to re-igniting your sex life, to knowing when it's time to leave a relationship. My time as an intern gave me insights into the media that I am using today to make my business a success. There is one more thing I want to convey about interning. When you make the decision to do this, you really have to let your ego go. Chances are you are going to be the oldest member of the team. This means you will be taking your marching orders from someone young enough to be your kid, and that may be a big challenge. Every time you have second thoughts, remember the experience you get will help you find a place in today's job market, or the confidence to start a new business doing what you love. I did it and so can you. Linda Franklin is the founder and director of The Real Cougar Woman www.therealcougarwoman.com. She is a speaker, writer, and advocate for women over 40. More on Careers
 
Tom Engelhardt: The Great Afghan Bailout Top
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com It's Time to Change Names, Switch Analogies Let's start by stopping. It's time, as a start, to stop calling our expanding war in Central and South Asia "the Afghan War" or "the Afghanistan War." If Obama's special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke doesn't want to, why should we? Recently, in a BBC interview , he insisted that "the 'number one problem' in stabilizing Afghanistan was Taliban sanctuaries in western Pakistan, including tribal areas along the Afghan border and cities like Quetta" in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan. And isn't he right? After all, the U.S. seems to be in the process of trading in a limited war in a mountainous, poverty-stricken country of 27 million people for one in an advanced nation of 167 million, with a crumbling economy, rising extremism, advancing corruption, and a large military armed with nuclear weapons. Worse yet, the war in Pakistan seems to be expanding inexorably (and in tandem with American war planning ) from the tribal borderlands ever closer to the heart of the country. These days, Washington has even come up with a neologism for the change: "Af-Pak," as in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater of operations. So, in the name of realism and accuracy, shouldn't we retire "the Afghan War" and begin talking about the far more disturbing "Af-Pak War"? And while we're at it, maybe we should retire the word "surge" as well. Right now, as the Obama plan for that Af-Pak War is being "rolled out," newspaper headlines have been surging when it comes to accepting the surge paradigm. Long before the administration's "strategic review" of the war had even been completed, President Obama was reportedly persuaded by former Iraq surge commander, now CentCom commander, General David Petraeus to "surge" another 17,000 troops into Afghanistan, starting this May. For the last two weeks, news has been filtering out of Washington of an accompanying civilian "surge" into Afghanistan (" Obama's Afghanistan 'surge' : diplomats, civilian specialists"). Oh, and then there's to be that opium-eradication surge and a range of other so-called surges. As the headlines have had it: " 1,400 Isle Marines to join Afghanistan surge," " U.S. troop surge to aid Afghan police trainers," " Seabees build to house surge," " Afghan Plan Detailed As Iraq Surge 'Lite,'" and so on. It seems to matter little that even General Petraeus wonders whether the word should be applied. ("The commander of the U.S. Central Command said Friday that an Iraq-style surge cannot be a solution to the problems in Afghanistan.") There are, however, other analogies that might better capture the scope and nature of the new strategic plan for the Af-Pak War. Think bailout. Think A.I.G. The Costs of an Expanding War In truth, what we're about to watch should be considered nothing less than the Great Afghan (or Af-Pak) bailout. On Friday morning, the president officially rolled out his long-awaited "comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan," a plan without a name . If there was little news in it, that was only because of the furious leaking of prospective parts of it over the previous weeks. So many trial balloons, so little time. In a recent 60 Minutes interview (though not in his Friday announcement), the president also emphasized the need for an "exit strategy" from the war. Similarly, American commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, has been speaking of a possible "tipping point," three to five years away, that might lead to "eventual departure." Nonetheless, almost every element of the new plan -- both those the president mentioned Friday and the no-less-crucial ones that didn't receive a nod -- seem to involve the word "more"; that is, more U.S. troops , more U.S. diplomats, more civilian advisors, more American and NATO military advisors to train more Afghan troops and police, more base and outpost building, more opium-eradication operations, more aid, more money to the Pakistani military -- and strikingly large-scale as that may be, all of that doesn't even include the "covert war," fought mainly via unmanned aerial vehicles, along the Pakistani tribal borderlands, which is clearly going to intensify . In the coming year, that CIA-run drone war, according to leaked reports, may be expanded from the tribal areas into Pakistan's more heavily populated Baluchistan province where some of the Taliban leadership is supposedly holed up. In addition, so reports in British papers claim, the U.S. is seriously considering a soft coup-in-place against Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Disillusioned with the widespread corruption in, and inefficiency of, his government, the U.S. would create a new "chief executive" or prime ministerial post not in the Afghan constitution -- and then install some reputedly less corrupt (and perhaps more malleable) figure. Karzai would supposedly be turned into a figurehead "father of the nation." Envoy Holbrooke has officially denied that Washington is planning any such thing, while a spokesman for Karzai denounced the idea (both, of course, just feeding the flames of the Afghan rumor mill). What this all adds up to is an ambitious doubling down on just about every bet already made by Washington in these last years -- from the counterinsurgency war against the Taliban and the counter-terrorism war against al-Qaeda to the financial love/ hate relationship with the Pakistani military and its intelligence services underway since at least the Nixon years of the early 1970s. (Many of the flattering things now being said by U.S. officials about Pakistani Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, for instance, were also said about the now fallen autocrat Pervez Musharraf when he held the same position.) Despite that mention of the need for an exit strategy and a presidential assurance that both the Afghan and Pakistani governments will be held to Iraqi-style "benchmarks" of accountability in the period to come, Obama's is clearly a jump-in-with-both-feet strategy and, not surprisingly, is sure to involve a massive infusion of new funds. Unlike with A.I.G., where the financial inputs of the U.S. government are at least announced, we don't even have a ballpark figure for how much is actually involved right now, but it's bound to be staggering. Just supporting those 17,000 new American troops already ordered into Afghanistan, many destined to be dispatched to still-to-be-built bases and outposts in the embattled southern and eastern parts of the country for which all materials must be trucked in, will certainly cost billions. Recently, the Washington Post's Walter Pincus dug up some of the construction and transportation costs associated with the war in Afghanistan and found that, as an employer, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comes in second only to the Afghan government in that job-desperate country. The Corps is spending about $4 billion this year alone on road-building activities, and has slated another $4-$6 billion for more of the same in 2010; it has, according to Pincus, already spent $2 billion constructing facilities for the expanding Afghan army and police forces, and has another $1.2 billion set aside for more such facilities this year. It is also likely to spend between $400 million and $1.4 billion on as many as six new bases , assorted outposts, and associated air fields American troops will be sent to in the south. Throw in hardship pay, supplies, housing, and whatever else for the hundreds of diplomats and advisors in that promised "civilian surge"; add in the $1.5 billion a year the president promised in economic aid to Pakistan over the next five years, a tripling of such aid (as urged by Vice President Biden when he was still a senator); add in unknown amounts of aid to the Pakistani and Afghan militaries. Tote it up and you've just scratched the surface of Washington's coming investment in the Af-Pak War. (And lest you imagine that these costs might, at least, be offset by savings from Obama's plan to draw down American forces in Iraq, think again. A recent study by the Government Accountability Office suggests that "Iraq-related expenditures" will actually increase "during the withdrawal and for several years after its completion.") Put all this together and you can see why the tactical word "surge" hardly covers what's about to happen. The administration's "new" strategy and its "new" thinking -- including its urge to peel off less committed Taliban supporters and reach out for help to regional powers -- should really be re-imagined as but another massive attempted bailout, this time of an Afghan project, now almost 40 years old, that in foreign policy terms is indeed our A.I.G. Graveyard Thinking As Obama's economic team overseeing the various financial bailouts is made up of figures long cozy with Wall Street, so his foreign policy team is made up of figures deeply entrenched in Washington's national security state -- former Clintonistas (including the penultimate Clinton herself), military figures like National Security Adviser General James Jones, and that refugee from the H.W. Bush era, Defense Secretary Robert Gates. They are classic custodians of empire. Like the economic team , they represent the ancien régime . They've now done their "stress tests," which, in the world of foreign policy, are called "strategic reviews." They recognize that unexpected forces are pressing in on them. They grasp that the American global system, as it existed since the truncated American century began, is in danger. They're ready to bite the bullet and bail it out. Their goal is to save what they care about in ways that they know. Unfortunately, the end result is likely to be that, as with A.I.G., we, the American people, could end up "owning" 80% of the Af-Pak project without ever "nationalizing" it -- without ever, that is, being in actual control. In fact, if things go as badly as they could in the Af-Pak War, A.I.G. might end up looking like a good deal by comparison. The foreign policy team is no more likely to exhibit genuinely outside-the-box thinking than the team of Tim Geithner and Larry Summers has been. Their clear and desperate urge is to operate in the known zone, the one in which the U.S. is always imagined to be part of the solution to any problem on the planet, never part of the problem itself. In foreign policy (as in economic policy), it took the Bush team less than eight years to steer the ship of state into the shallows where it ran disastrously aground. And yet, in response, after months of "strategic review," this team of inside-the-Beltway realists has come up with a combination of Af-Pak War moves that are almost blindingly expectable. In the end, this sort of thinking is likely to leave the Obama administration hostage to its own projects as well as unprepared for the onrush of the unexpected and unknown, whose arrival may be the only thing that can be predicted with assurance right now. Whether as custodians of the imperial economy or the imperial frontier, Obama's people are lashed to the past, to Wall Street and the national security state. They are ill-prepared to take the necessary full measure of our world. If you really want a "benchmark" for measuring how our world has been shifting on its axis, consider that we have all lived to see a Chinese premier appear at what was, in essence, an international news conference and seriously upbraid Washington for its handling of the global economy. That might have been surprising in itself. Far more startling was the response of Washington. A year ago, the place would have been up in arms. This time around, from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ("There's no safer investment in the world than in the United States...") to the president himself ("Not just the Chinese government, but every investor can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States..."), Washington's response was to mollify and reassure. Face it, we've entered a new universe. The "homeland" is in turmoil, the planetary frontiers are aboil. Change -- even change we don't want to believe in -- is in the air. In the end, as with the Obama economic team, so the foreign policy team may be pushed in new directions sooner than anyone imagines and, willy-nilly, into some genuinely new thinking about a collapsing world. But not now. Not yet. Like our present financial bailouts, like that extra $30 billion that went into A.I.G. recently, the new Obama plan is
 
Town sues Madoff, hedge funds over losses Top
FAIRFIELD, Conn. — A Connecticut town is suing disgraced financier Bernard Madoff, his family and investment companies because its pension board allegedly lost millions in Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The lawsuit seeking $75 million was filed Monday in Bridgeport Superior Court by the town of Fairfield and its pension board. It names members of Madoff's family and Tremont Partners and Maxam Capital Management for failing to oversee Madoff's investments, and the founding partners of Fairfield Greenwich Group, which lost more than $7 billion in the scheme. "These are entities that raised money and solicited money and fed money to Madoff to enable his Ponzi scheme to succeed," attorney David Golub said at a news conference Tuesday. "We believe that the feeder funds know Bernard Madoff was engaging in criminal activity, supported that criminal activity, and abetted that criminal activity." The town's joint pension board, which provides benefits for about 1,500 active and retired Fairfield workers, had invested a net of about $15 million with Madoff since 1997. It was led to believe that as of last November, that investment had grown in value to $42 million. Golub said the $75 million claim _ one of at least four dozen Madoff-related lawsuits _ includes the $42 million, fees paid to the feeder fund managers over the years and punitive damages. Madoff's attorney, Ira Sorkin, and Fairfield Greenwich spokesman Tom Mulligan declined to comment. Officials at Tremont and Maxam did not immediately return phone messages. Madoff, 70, was sent to prison in March after he pleaded guilty to charges that he ripped off thousands of investors for billions of dollars. He was arrested in December after confessing to his sons that his private investment business was a giant fraud. He faces a maximum sentence of 150 years in prison. Federal prosecutors have said Madoff informed investors at the end of November that they had nearly $65 billion in their accounts. Investigators say the figure was most likely based on what accounts originally valued at less than $20 billion would be worth if he had delivered the steady profits he promised. The FBI and regulators are still trying to determine if members of Madoff's inner circle were in on the fraud. They say the investigation could drag out for months. Fairfield officials this week also obtained a temporary restraining order that prevents Madoff, his relatives and executives with Fairfield Greenwich, Maxam and other firms that allegedly fed Madoff's fund from selling real estate, personal property and financial accounts. The assets of Madoff's investment company have already been frozen in a deal with federal regulators and a receiver was appointed to manage the firm's financial affairs. The town had previously sued two other companies _ NEPC of Cambridge, Mass., and KPMG of Montvale, N.J. _ for failing to provide due diligence of Fairfield's investments. (This version CORRECTS lawsuit filed Monday, sted Tuesday, ADDS quotes, calls placed with defendants. Moving on general news and financial services.) More on Bernard Madoff
 
Obama's Wednesday G-20 Schedule Top
Today is President Obama and the First Lady's first full day in the United Kingdom for the G-20 Summit. The following is today's schedule; bear in mind that the UK is 5 hours ahead of Eastern Standard time. 7:30 A.M. : The Obamas arrived bright and early at Downing Street to meet with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown after spending the night in the US Ambassador's Winfield House. 10:00 A.M. : President Obama and Prime Minister Brown hold a joint press conference. [WATCH:] 12:45 P.M. : Obama met with Russian President Medvedev, followed by a joint statement from the two leaders committing to increased nuclear disarmament. Obama also accepted an invitation to visit Moscow in the near future. 2:00 P.M. : Obama met with with British Conservative leader David Cameron (Gordon Brown's domestic rival). 3:00 P.M. : Obama met with Chinese leaders, including Chinese President Hu Jintao, wherein the two leaders agreed to "intensify coordination and cooperation on global economic and financial issues." Afterwards, Obama accepted an invitation to visit China later this year. Late afternoon : President and First Lady Obama will meet with Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II of England, which Obama has proclaimed he is "very much looking forward to." 7:00 P.M. : Obamas will attend a G-20 leaders reception, hosted by the Queen and Prince Philip, followed by a G-20 leaders 'working dinner', hosted by Gordon and Sarah Brown . More on G-20 Summit
 
Dave Hackel: Electric Cars Are Un-American -- That's Crazy...Even For Limbaugh Top
Rush Limbaugh is in heaven. (I'd use the phrase "pig in shit" but I see no need to be disrespectful...or too on the money.) You see, there's a Democrat in the White House, so the gloves are off. Rush is free to unleash all of his bile and bias until he's whipped up his base into a lovely Socialist fearing hate filled frothy frenzy. It's what he does. And since I've never met anyone who's a "new" Limbaugh fan, I've got to assume that he spends his time preaching to a faithful choir. He uses a fairly predictable song list that we've all heard before. Feel free to sing along: Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good, increased government spending is bad, tax cuts for the rich are good, OxyContin is good, getting caught doctor-shopping to get a lot of it is bad, e-i-e-i-oh. And this time around, since the Conservative movement in this country seems to be searching for a guru, El-Rusho's stock has gone up. So much so that if anyone dares to disagree with their gelatinous leader, they quickly have to apologize and beg his forgiveness. Of course this feeds the beast, creating an ego that even his fervent flock are surprised could grow any larger. But unlike the political sheep who think they need Limbaugh's blessing, I'm not running for office. I'm not running for anything. So I couldn't care less what Limbaugh thinks of my opinions. Therefore, even though Rush probably doesn't like that his critics are protected by the same Constitution that he claims needs his protection, I'm going to exercise my right of free speech granted by its First Amendment. It would take too long for me to point out all the wrong thinking that Limbaugh spews as truth, so I'm going to jump right to the most recent and, I believe, most stupid example of the swill he feeds to his minions. I heard this myself. Why do I listen to his radio show? I suppose because I'm weak. I'm also powerless to look away from train wrecks and circus geeks. Now stay with me here, because this little gem of insanity is kind of hard to follow. Ready? Battery powered rechargeable cars are un-American. That's right. According to His Wackness, when the Obama administration endorses the development of any vehicle that doesn't use a gasoline burning internal combustion engine, it's an example of how they want to take away another of our basic freedoms. Yes, you read it correctly. Encouraging electric vehicle research and production is against our core American values. You see, according to Limbaugh, Americans like to be able to get in their cars and drive for as long and far as they want to without being "forced" to stop and recharge their batteries. And if the Obama administration continues to promote greener reusable, rechargeable automotive technology, they're out to deny flag loving Americans their rights. Next he'll be discouraging the use of anything but automatic weapons because true Americans don't want to be forced to stop and reload. Mind you, he hasn't said that. Not yet. But stay tuned. No, don't. I'll keep listening, so you don't have to.
 
Jim Jaffe: 2 Cheers for Cardiac Superpill Top
It looks like the next big product at McDonald's will be the healthy, happy meal that will provide us with a Big Mac, a jumbo order of fries, a large Coke and perhaps a mini-pie as well as the new polypill created by the cardiac community that promises to reduce heart attacks and strokes by at least half.( http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-30-heart-polypill_N.htm) . The pill would significantly improve our health to a point where we could go back to eating as much as we liked of whatever we liked without worrying about shortening our lives. It wouldn't solve all our problems. We'd still worry about obesity and diabetes, but there's new evidence that bariatric surgery, which remains a bit more expensive than the one-dollar polypill, can reverse both of these troubling conditions. I'm not curmudgeon enough to rain on the parade of those celebrating this new pill, but it does remind me again of the tension between those who nag us to take better care of ourselves - and are often ignored - and those who have faith that science will solve our problems. This is America, so it isn't surprising that the latter group is winning. And it is probably too early to start contemplating what disease will subsequently explode to take up the slack if we move toward broad use of the polypill, but I'd be willing to place a modest bet on dementia, which seems to be getting a fair amount of attention. Hovering in the background is the question of whether it is preferable to die slowly from Alzheimer's, quickly from a massive heart attack or confront a range of choices that come with having a stroke. Even in our world, few talk seriously about defeating death, so it is prudent to acknowledge the question even if raising it is hardly a compelling argument against the polypill. A more immediate question is how plausible the new projections are, even assuming that the research is strong and the side effects minor. Our losing war against obesity suggests that people don't quickly and naturally change their behavior simply because they're told it would be prudent to do so. So while it may be possible to reduce heart attack and stroke deaths, the numbers we're now hearing are probably exaggerated. There's some evidence from those who deal with compliance issues that those who could be helped most - if only because they are the most at risk at the start - are the hardest to convince. Providing a pill won't help people who don't take it. Perhaps our next study should enlist McDonald's to grind up the ingredients of the polypill and cook the result into the fast food items we order. That could make a big difference. Also posted to CenteredPolitics.com More on Health
 
Heidi Kingstone: Anti-Semitism Without Anti-Semites Top
Antisemitism in Europe is running at 1930s levels. But there are no anti-semites, only anti-Zionists. with Douglas Davis Rowan Laxton was watching news of Israeli military activity in Gaza on television while working out on an exercise bike at his central London gym. What happened next unnerved fellow gym patrons: "F-ing Israelis. F-ing Jews," he screamed repeatedly, interspersing his rant with demands for Israeli troops to be "wiped off the face of the earth". He was still bellowing when the police arrived several minutes later to arrest him on a charge of inciting religious hatred. This bizarre episode is worth recording for two reasons. First, because it is an example, albeit extreme, of how anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism have become conflated. Second, because the 47-year-old ranter is not a low-life Jew-hater who had just crawled out from under an antediluvian rock. Rowan Laxton is a high-ranking British diplomat, a former deputy ambassador to Afghanistan and now head of the South Asia Group at the Foreign Office (currently suspended), reporting directly to his (Jewish) boss, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. The sad fact of this little episode is that the hateful sentiments articulated in that London gym are now common currency across Europe. Anti-Semitism is said to be running at 1930s levels. Last month, CNN used footage of anti-Israeli protesters in London to illustrate hatred of Israel in the Arab and Muslim world, prompting one observer to note that, "the mythical Arab Street now reaches deep into Paris, London, Berlin and Madrid". Europe is overflowing with Rowan Laxtons, educated, sophisticated, cultured, civilised and urbane. What made his outburst a minor cause célèbre is that high-ranking European diplomats are usually smart enough -- and controlled enough -- to speak their anti-Semitism in private, and in more nuanced language. But a conjunction of events is accelerating the return of Europe's oldest hatred across the political and the socio-economic spectrum. There is a deepening sense of political uncertainty over European integration, economic dislocation caused by the global financial crisis, profound social change, and the absence of a political will to oppose the substantial minority of radicalised Islamists among the 18-million-strong Muslim population of Europe (ten times the size of Europe's Jewish inhabitants). Not least, there is a profound, widespread loathing of Israel. The fact that we are able to understand the causes and rationalise the toxic phenomenon does not make this slow-motion car-crash less compelling to observe. Neo-Nazi anti-Semitism is not new to Europe, but the casual, pervasive "high-class" anti-Semitism -- from the patrician boardrooms of Swiss banks to the bawdy shower rooms of the House of Lords -- is discomfiting to Jews. It is particularly discomfiting to those who thought they had, at last, made themselves socially digestible. They believed they had transcended their origins, penetrated the barrier that separated their fathers from polite society and been granted unlimited access to the "mainstream." They were wrong. And a succession of polling organisations is telling them so. A study conducted by the Pew organisation last September told them that 25 per cent of Germans and 20 per cent of Frenchmen are still infected by anti-Semitism. In Spain, which has virtually no Jews but which boasts Europe's most virulently anti-Israel media and political establishment, the figure rises to 46 per cent. More recently, a poll conducted in seven European countries by the US-based Anti-Defamation League between December 2008 and January 2009, found that 31 per cent of respondents blame Jews working in the financial sector for the economic meltdown, while 58 per cent acknowledge that their antipathy toward Jews has increased in line with their hostility toward Israel. There is more. Nearly one-half said they believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their home country, 44 per cent said it is "probably true" that Jews make too much of the Holocaust, while 23 per cent say they blame Jews for the death of Jesus. Overall, 40 per cent of the European respondents believe Jews exercise overweening power in the business world, a figure that rises to more than 50 per cent in judenrein Spain, Poland and Hungary. The concept of "anti-Semitism without Jews" is not new. It was, indeed, a defining characteristic of the old East European Soviet bloc, which has remained virulently anti-Semitic long after its Jewish population had been destroyed in the Holocaust. But no sooner had we got our head around the concept of "anti-Semitism without Jews" than the new anti-Semitism has produced a new concept: "Anti-Semitism without Anti-Semites." The father of the phrase is the German writer Henryk Broder, and the circumstance of its birth was, appropriately, the interior committee of the German Bundestag, to which Broder was giving evidence. The supposedly non-existent anti-Semites are the phalanx of "progressive" academics, journalists and politicians who express unlimited hatred of Israel and would boycott the state out of existence but vehemently reject the suggestion that they are anti-Semitic. Polite, sophisticated, educated, cultured Europeans have altered their vocabulary. Today they speak of "Zionists" and "lobby" rather than "Jews" and "conspiracy." The words have changed, but the meaning retains a chilling familiarity. More on Israel
 
G-20 Protesters Break Into Royal Bank Of Scotland In London (SLIDESHOW) Top
LONDON - G-20 protesters clashed with riot police in downtown London on Wednesday, breaking into the heavily guarded Royal Bank of Scotland and smashing its windows. Earlier, they tried to storm the Bank of England and pelted police with eggs and fruit. At least 4,000 anarchists, anti-capitalists, environmentalists and others jammed into London's financial district for what they called "Financial Fool's Day." The protests were called ahead of Thursday's summit of world leaders, who hope to take concrete steps to resolve the global financial crisis that has lashed nations and workers worldwide. Some protesters spray-painted the side of the RBS building with the phrases "class war" and "thieves." Others pushed against columns of riot police who swatted them away with batons. Demonstrators shouted "Abolish Money!" and clogged streets in the area known as "The City" even as Prime Minister Gordon Brown and President Barack Obama held a news conference elsewhere in the British capital. At least eight people were arrested but there were no serious injuries reported. Royal Bank of Scotland is at the center of protesters' anger because it had to be bailed out by the British government after a series of disastrous deals brought it to the brink of bankruptcy. The bank is now majority-owned by the British taxpayer. Despite that, its former chief executive Fred Goodwin -- aged just 50 -- managed to walk off with a tidy $1 million annual pension for life, while unemployment in Britain now tops 2 million and is heading towards 3 million by the end of this year. Goodwin has been vilified by the British press. RBS posted a British record loss of 24.1 billion pounds for 2008. The British government has invested 20 billion pounds in propping up the bank. Helicopters hovered above the protests and some buildings were boarded up. Many banks had extra security and hundreds of police officers lined the streets. "Every job I apply for there's already 150 people who have also applied," said protester Nathan Dean, 35, who lost his information technology job three weeks ago. "I have had to sign on to the dole (welfare) for the first time in my life. You end up having to pay your mortgage on your credit card and you fall into debt twice over." Demonstrators hoisted effigies of the "four horsemen of the apocalypse," representing war, climate chaos, financial crimes and homelessness. "The greed that is driving people is tearing us apart," said Steve Lamont, 45, flanked by his family and protesters who were banging on bells, playing drums and blowing whistles. One police officer lost his helmet and demonstrators tossed it around like a trophy and chanted slogans. Fearing they would be targeted by protesters, some bankers swapped their pinstripe suits for casual wear and others stayed home. Bolder financial workers leaned out their office windows Wednesday, taunting demonstrators and waving 10 pound notes at them. Especially in Britain, bankers have been lambasted as being greedy and blamed for the recession that is making jobless ranks soar. "It seems like everything is in a mess," said protester Steve Johnson, 49, an unemployed construction worker. "You get bankers getting massive bonuses, and the MPs (British lawmakers) are lining their own pockets." Protesters waved banners reading "Banks are evil," "Eat the bankers," and "0% interest in others." One protester dressed as the Easter bunny managed to hop through the police cordon but was stopped before he could reach the Bank of England. Another black-clad demonstrator waved a fake light saber at officers. Musician and political activist Billy Bragg said the time was now to make a difference. "It's better than sitting down shouting at the television at these bankers," he said. "We cannot go back to the way things were before to the million-dollar bonus culture." More on G-20 Summit
 
Greg Mitchell: Colbert Went Where the New York Times Feared to Tread on Glenn Beck Top
Was it another Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer takedown? Another case of a faux newsman going where the mainstream media dared not go? It was shocking last night to watch the usually pro-right-wing Colbert persona lay into Beck without an ounce of sympathy. It came just one day after the New York Times ' front page profile of Beck that failed to fully air his dirty laundry and mainly treated him as just another popular entertainer. Colbert, as you will read and see following this link , expressed (albeit with his usual twinkle) all of the passion, and skill, shown by Stewart when he went after Cramer. He was not just foolin' around. Something obviously got to him. Perhaps it was a part left out of the Times ' piece, which covered Beck's new "9/12" movement without mentioning that Beck had attacked 9/11 families and said he was sick of hearing about it and them. The punch line: "The 9-12 project is not for families directly affected by 9/11 -- just people building their careers on it." Colbert earlier had mocked Beck's "war room" wankery. And it all comes on the heels of the new Rasmussen poll showing that 1 in 4 Americans now see the Comedy Central late-night shows as "viable" news outlets. Greg Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher. His new book is "Why Obama Won." More on Stephen Colbert
 
Tom Woodruff: Depression in California's Inland Empire Shows Need for Employee Free Choice Act Top
An economic tragedy is unfolding in the "hub" of the new global economy-- the Inland Empire region of southern California--and it serves as a living reminder of the need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act to give working Americans a realistic shot at the American Dream. While the rest of the country is going through a recession, the Inland Empire is in the grips of a depression. Just east of Los Angeles in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, the region led the nation in economic development and population growth as recently as three years ago. Now it leads the nation in unemployment and ranks third in foreclosures. The collapse of the housing market started the downturn, but the reason this area is now ground zero of the Great Recession is the failed business model of its dominant industry: warehousing and distribution for the nation's biggest retailers. The Inland Empire is home to the largest concentration of warehouse space on the planet, 366 million square feet and growing. More than 43% of all US imports come through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and over three-quarters of this cargo takes at least one trip through an Inland Empire warehouse. The top five companies with the most warehouse space are the biggest retail corporations in the nation: Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes, and Sears/Kmart. As the region's manufacturing base disappeared--Southern California lost over 361,000 manufacturing jobs between 1990 and 2005--it was replaced with new jobs hauling, sorting, packing, and shipping the goods that are now being manufactured in China and other parts of the globe. As the key hub in the "goods movement industry," the warehouses and distribution centers of the Inland Empire employ more than 100,000 workers. The goods movement industry was supposed to provide a path to the middle class for workers in the region, but instead a majority of the workers in these warehouses are hired through temp agencies or third-party logistics firms, paid low wages, receive few benefits, and have no job security. Temporary employment in the area grew by 575% since 1990. This was a bad situation for working families when times were good, as many workers made less than $8.49 an hour according to a recent report. Now that times are bad, it's been a total disaster. Many temporary workers have found themselves getting fewer and fewer hours, until they become virtually unemployed, but without any unemployment benefits at all, not to mention severance pay, recall rights, or even any advance notice. The area's fractured employment model has turned a recession into a depression. There are now tens of thousands of laid off warehouse workers with no unemployment, no safety net at all, just barely getting by. Ignacio Sanchez lost his warehouse job in October and now struggles every day to feed his family. Ignacio was a "lumper," unloading the large containers that come to the warehouses from the ports. He now spends his days watching over his five year-old daughter and searching dumpsters for cans and food. When he finds food, he has to hide where he got it from his daughter because if she knew, she might not eat it. Olga Romero, who worked 14 hour days repacking shoes at a warehouse, was laid off three months ago with no warning or cause and has been unable to find work since. She can only afford to feed her family rice and beans for dinner, and worries about the days ahead. "There's no future with these bad jobs," she says. "I need a real job to take care of my family, not another temp job." As conditions worsen in the Inland Empire, the big retail companies that created the broken business model have not accepted responsibility for the damage they have done. They hide behind the temp agencies and third-party logistics firms in an elaborate shell game. This is typical of an industry that has not acknowledged responsibility for any part of its supply chain, from the workers in the factories in China and Southeast Asia to the temp warehouse workers in the Inland Empire to the retail staff working for the minimum wage. And make no mistake about it: many big corporations would spread this failed fractured temp system to every corner of the country if they could. Even when the economy recovers, there will still be no hope of achieving the American Dream for the warehouse workers unless the system is changed. It is time for Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes, and Sears/Kmart to take responsibility for the workers who helped them become so profitable and to treat them with dignity and respect. A new worker movement is growing in the Inland Empire to hold these companies accountable. Thousands of warehouse workers are joining together in Warehouse Workers United to change the broken system. They are calling for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which will make it easier to form a union and negotiate for higher wages, better benefits and a new employment system that treats all workers fairly. More than one million new jobs will be created in the goods movement industry in Southern California by 2030, according to projections. For only pennies on the dollar, the retail industry could turn them into high quality, middle class jobs that support a family. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced and could play a major role in revitalizing our reeling economy. But only if the nation's biggest retailers are held responsible for the treatment of all the workers in their supply chain. This struggle is just one of the many across the country that illustrate why American workers need the Employee Free Choice Act. You can help by telling Congress to pass this important bill. Sign the petition . More on Walmart
 
Lev Ponomarev, Russian Human Rights Activist, Attacked Top
Lev Ponomarev, the leader of the Moscow-based group "For Human Rights," was attacked and brutally beaten Tuesday in what the human rights activist is describing as a "contract assault." Ponomarev insists that the attack was revenge-driven and hardly a "random beating by hooligans," the Financial Times reports. From the Times : The timing of the attack could not have been worse for Russia's international reputation. Coming on the eve of Russian president Dmitry Medvedev's first summit talks with US president Barack Obama in London on Wednesday, it follows a string of beatings and killings of opposition figures over the past few months, in which perpetrators are rarely if ever found. Tatyana Lokshina, head of the Moscow office of Human Rights Watch, said "I connect this attack to Mr Ponomarev's professional work. This incident shows that the atmosphere in which Russian civil society works is unacceptable." This is not the first time Ponomarev has been attacked in connection to words and actions he has taken against the state. According to Amnesty International: Just prior to the attack, Lev Ponomarev had met with Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, the Rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, regarding allegations of politically-motivated abuses of the criminal justice system in connection with this trial. Lev Ponomarev has also criticized the Russian penal system repeatedly. At a press conference in June 2008, during which he described ill-treatment of detainees in penal colonies, he was attacked by a group of young people, allegedly acting on behalf of a Russian parliamentarian. More on Russia
 
White House: House GOP Budget A "Joke" Top
House and Senate Republicans emerged from an early morning meeting in a closed House chamber Wednesday morning to unveil their much-awaited budget alternative. Roughly a hundred GOP men and women descended the East Capitol steps in a light drizzle to announce their product to the American people. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined their colleagues, entering from the side, and addressed the gathered reporters. After ripping the Democratic budget as too expensive, Boehner said that "Republicans in the House will offer a better solution that'll be less on spending, less on taxes and a lot less on debt for our kids and grandkids." But there was no budget. "Do you guys have a formal budget yet?" asked a reporter. "Mr. Ryan will outline the Republican budget at 10:30 this morning. And yes we do have it," replied Boehner, referring to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). A silence followed, with reporters apparently unsure what to ask next. Democrats, in contrast, had plenty to say, with Obama officials mocking the Republican document as a sad April Fools prank. "If you expected a GOP alternative to the failed policies of the past that got our country into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, then I have two words for you: April Fool's," said Kenneth Baer, OMB communications director. Another administration official added on background: "We read the Ryan budget alternative -- or what we know of it -- in the Wall Street Journal. It appears that this is more of the same failed policies that got us into this mess." Meanwhile, Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to the president and increasingly active administration spokesman, told MSNBC: "Well, look, I thought it was most appropriate that this thing came out on April Fools' Day because this thing is the biggest April Fools' Joke and cruelest that we have had in years. If you look at what they are doing...they are calling for putting in a multi-trillion dollar additional tax cut for the highest income Americans, they are now talking about privatizing Medicare turning it into a voucher so that they can cut it substantially. That's not the reform of an entitlement -- it is the gutting of a program." Baer's and Goolsbee's remarks are far sharper than the generally inclusive approach the Obama White House took with the House GOP during the crafting of the stimulus. The change in tone may be owed to the fact that the president was unable to persuade a single Republican in the House to vote for that recovery package. Mainly, however, the alternatives that the GOP is offering for the budget -- entitlement reform, $4 million in tax cuts primarily for the wealthy, a freeze on discretionary spending for five years on everything except national defense and veterans health care -- are diametrically at odds with where the president stands. That said, Goolsbee pivoted from his condemnation of the GOP to note potential points of agreement, telling MSNBC: "There are a few areas where they seem to be looking in the correct direction. And that is following some of the reforms that [OMB Director] Peter Orszag and others in the administration have been putting forward and some health care reforms. But in a lot of areas it is problematic."
 
Pending home rise 2.1 percent in Feb. from Jan. Top
WASHINGTON — An index that tracks signed contracts to purchase previously occupied homes rose in February from a record low a month earlier as buyers took advantage of deeply discounted prices and low interest rates. The National Association of Realtors said Wednesday said its seasonally adjusted index of pending sales for previously occupied homes rose 2.1 percent _ in line with expectations _ to 82.1 in February from January's record low of 80.4. Typically there is a one- to two-month lag between a contract and a done deal, so the index is a barometer for future home sales. Because of falling home prices and mortgage rates, homeownership is more affordable than it's been since at least 1970, the trade group said. Hopes have been growing that home sales, while still severly depressed, may be finally showing signs of life. Sales of existing home sales rose 5.1 percent in February, the largest increase in nearly six years. Prices, however, are expected to keep falling for at least another year. Tens of thousands of homes are tied up in the foreclosure process and not yet for sale. Plus, as the recession deepens and job losses mount, many buyers are likely to stay on the sidelines. The Realtors estimate that 45 percent of existing home sales are now foreclosures and other distressed properties. Many in the real estate industry are counting on an $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers as their best hope for boosting flagging sales. That incentive was included in the economic stimulus package signed by President Barack Obama earlier this year. "We expect home sales to gain momentum in the second half of the year with first-time buyers absorbing a lot of the excess inventory," Lawrence Yun, the trade group's chief economist, said in a statement. "Under these conditions, we should see price stabilization in most markets by the end of the year." More on Real Estate
 
Wall Street begins 2nd quarter mixed Top
NEW YORK — Stocks were mixed Wednesday after some U.S. economic data came in better than expected. Pending home sales rebounded in February from a record low, the National Association of Realtors reported, while the Institute for Supply Management's index of manufacturing activity contracted in March but by a bit less than anticipated. Construction spending dropped in February for the fifth straight month, but at a slower pace than in January. Not all of the reports came as a relief: The ADP National Employment Report said private sector employment dropped by 742,000 in March. The figure was higher than anticipated, and a rattling sign ahead of the Labor Department's Friday report on nationwide job cuts last month. The Dow Jones industrial average is up 16 percent from the nearly 12-year low it hit in early March, but the index is still coming off the worst start to the year since 1939. The Dow dropped 13.3 percent in the first quarter. The market is pausing its rally as the world's finance ministers meet in London to discuss the slumping global economy. Speculation has risen in recent days that the various countries in the Group of 20 are disagreeing about how to handle the global financial crisis. As thousands of protesters gathered in London, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the G20 was close to agreeing on global reforms of the financial system. In midmorning trading, the Dow rose 4.22, or 0.1 percent, to 7,613.14. Broader stock indexes were lower. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 0.26, or 0.03 percent, to 797.61. The Nasdaq composite index fell 4.02, or 0.3 percent, to 1,524.57. More on Financial Crisis
 
Dr. Judith Rich: The Paradox Of Failure: The Other "F" Word Top
This is the 8th installment in the ongoing series Impossible To Inevitable: Dare To Dream Big "Failure sucks, but instructs. " Robert Sutton, Professor of Management Sciences and Engineering , Stanford University. With the world being what it is today, many people are having to deal with some harsh new realities, called , " I lost my job, my life is off track, or I went for my dream and it didn't turn out ". Does this mean you've failed? And if so, now what? Some of you have sent me emails sharing your stories about climbing up the mountain of your Impossible Dreams. Depending on the dream, you might come to a place in the trek where the going is steep, the road conditions are challenging and it doesn't look like things are going to turn out. Sometimes they don't and you feel like a failure. You thought you gave it everything, but still, it didn't happen. At times like these, it's tempting to loose faith and give up. But is that the only option? Most business schools teach their entrepreneur majors that failure is a necessary part of learning and innovation. Their motto is: " Fail early, fail fast, fail cheap ." Sounds like this advice could have application for the rest of us as well. In other words, when failure arrives at your doorstep, don't turn it away, but invite it in. I know, it might sound crazy, but perk up your ears and get this. Failure comes with some goodies that are necessary steps on your way to success, so best you get to know this part of the process early on. Learn to make friends with your failed efforts as much as the ones that worked. You might just learn more from failure than from success. If you haven't attended an entrepreneur program in business school, chances are you haven't been encouraged to fail, much less taught to celebrate your failures. But listen to this: every year during Entrepreneur week, Stanford's Technology Ventures Program gives an award for the "Biggest Failure" in their Entrepreneurship Tournament. Imagine that! Failures could be celebrated! Let that sink in for a minute. What could be possible if you applied that philosophy to your own life, and specifically, to going for your impossible dreams? More information on this incredible program at Stanford and a rich resource on the topic of innovation and failure can be found on Robert Sutton's blog here . Very few things in life are clear-cut and straight-forward. Going for your Impossible Dreams qualifies as one of those amorphous endeavors that always seems to take you to places you never imagined and weren't part of the original plan. Life might have a slightly different path in mind for you than the one you had in mind. Consider the story of Nathan Jon, a reader, who emailed me the story of his remarkable adventure. Nathan grew up in a small town in New England, the son of a minister. But this life wasn't for him. He always knew he wanted to be an actor. Inspired by actor Mark Ruffalo, and with no training or experience , Nathan went to an open casting call and landed the part. He moved to LA and worked for off and on for awhile in Hollywood, but things didn't go as he'd hoped. Discouraged, he was set to leave Hollywood when, " out of the blue ", Nathan meets a big music producer and spends the next 4 years as a professional drummer (another passion of his) for bands like the Dixie Chicks and Christina Aguilara. And he hadn't played drums since he was a kid! He's now living a life that was not part of his plan. But he's got steady work. Still, in his heart, Nathan couldn't shake his desire to be an actor. Even with the buzz around the music industry, he felt his life had gotten off course and he was missing his own boat. He spent some time "in a dark period" not knowing what to do next. Then, "out of the blue", he gets a call from his old manager, who he hadn't spoken to in 5 years, with an offer to audition for a film directed by Mark Ruffalo. He gets the part! He got to work with his favorite actor, the one who inspired him to go into acting in the first place and just finished the filming in February. In his own words, here's where Nathan finds himself now: " And here I sit now in total flux and still pretty much broke, and a little frightened, with NO jobs presently on the horizon, pondering daily what comes next. Life has been proving to me however that around every unseen turn lies an even greater adventure than the last if you're willing to take the ride. But sometimes it's really hard not to panic. Even with all this evidence in my own life I'm still sitting here trying not to panic." Well, Nathan, Ole! to you. Keep the faith and keep breathing. And keep us posted. Greater things are on their way. Use this time in the void productively. Maybe it's now your turn to make a difference for someone coming along with a dream, just like yours. The point is, dear readers, when life throws you a curve, investigate it. It's there for a reason. Impossible Dream Lesson #8- Don't be attached to how you get to your dream. Wouldn't it be nice if everything you ever wanted or went after went according to plan, no surprises or delays, no unexpected challenges to throw you off course? Not according to Robert Komisar , a partner in KPCB venture capital firm. " The ones who go through life failing little or not at all are not as wise as those who have actually failed, " says Komisar. The word "failure" carries a heavy charge in most cultures. No one volunteers for failure. It seems to come, when it does, either in spite of the best laid plans or because those plans weren't actually as well laid out as you thought. But it always comes bearing a gift. There is much to be learned from failure, so it's good idea to get on top of it, ASAP. You were meant to do great things, including learning from the stuff you did that didn't work. To do that means you need to learn to look at failure through a different lens. 7 Steps For Getting The Lesson or as Randy Komisar puts it " How to get your money's worth out of failure" 1) Stop and step back. Breakdown is life's way of calling a "Time out". It's the referee blowing the whistle. So just stop. Stop doing what didn't work. 2) Do an inquiry. . Go back to see what you'd committed yourself to that had you taking the action you took that resulted in the breakdown. Breakdown only occurs inside the context of commitment. No commitment, no breakdown. Let's talk more about this next time. 3) Be honest with yourself. Look to see, inside this commitment, what action(s) didn't work? This is not the time to go into denial or pretend you don't know. Even if you think you don't know, ask yourself "If I did know, what would it be?" 4) Once you see what didn't work, ask yourself, " What was missing in me that had me get off course? " This is not about self-recrimination. What was missing in you, like a possibility? Maybe you weren't sufficiently focused, or lacking self-confidence. We're looking for where you can course correct and re-align yourself to get back on track with your original commitment. 5) Re-evaluate your commitment and re-commit . Are you still committed to this dream? Is this what you really want? If so, re-commit. You can expect that life will test you to make sure you're really committed, so get back on the bus of your dream and go again. 6) What did you learn about yourself through this breakdown? Where do you stop yourself? What limiting beliefs take over? What fears do you give your power to? Just think of these as life's little "commitment checks", just checking to see if this is what you're really after. Failure is here to teach you something. Did you get the lesson? 7) Choose again and take action Get back on the bus and off you go! Enjoy the ride until the next bump in the road. Here's an amazing video from Honda Motors. But it's not a commercial for their cars. It's a wonderful lesson in how their engineers have learned to use failure to help pave the way to success. There's some important learning here for us. Give it a watch: " All the demands from Soichiro Honda were to take risks and fail. The idea is that you can fail 100 times as long as you succeed once. We can only make fantastic advances in technology through many failures." Takeo Fukui, President and CEO, Honda Motor Co., LTD. Each of us has the power to turn our failures into success. Life hands us circumstances, but we're the ones who choose what to make of them. Failure is a victory if you learn from it, so don't be afraid to fail. It only means you're up to something big. To borrow my new favorite word from Elizabeth Gilbert, Ole! to your failures. May they come bearing many gifts. What breakdowns have you experienced on your way to your dreams? What's been the biggest learning for you from them? We'd love to hear from you, so please check into the Leave a Comment section below and let's expand the conversation. The floor is all yours. *** I've recently learned that the best way to get automatic updates on my blog is to click on the Become a Fan option at the top of this post. So, go ahead! Become a fan! We're good enough friends by now, aren't we? An update for readers of last week's post on the teens from Village Academy High School in Pomona, CA. I spoke with their teacher, Michael Steinman, on Monday and he said the kids have had a phenomenal week. Coverage of their story brought them much national attention and they're on fire and becoming activists. They've received an invitation to speak at a convention on poverty in Sacramento next October. This is a big deal for these kids. I thought you'd want to know. As always, thanks for being here. I love and welcome your participation. You can also reach me by email at judith@theraisinyears.com or on Facebook. Send me a friend request and let me know you're a reader. The Impossible Dreamers group on FB has over 200 members and we're reserving a spot for you, so join in. Ole!
 
Advertisement: Watch AT&T Investing In America Top
Watch the advertisement AT&T Investing In America.
 
Pittsburgh Suddenly On Cutting Edge Of Green Buildings Top
Though the southwestern Pennsylvania metropolitan area is only the 22nd largest in the United States in terms of population, the city employed energy-efficient construction well ahead of larger cities. In 2005, Pittsburgh claimed more LEED-certified square footage -- meaning it had met Leadership in Energy and Design standards for energy-saving designs and building techniques -- than anywhere else in the United States. As other cities have caught up, Pittsburgh now ranks seventh nationally in the number of buildings with such certification, according to the local Green Building Alliance. Founded in 1993, the alliance says it is the first nonprofit organization in the nation to encourage green commercial building. "There was no government-driven agenda here," said Rebecca Flora, former director of the Green Building Alliance and now senior vice president of education and research at the national Green Building Council, a nonprofit organization that oversees the LEED program. "Pittsburgh's doing green in a weak market city with existing building stock, and it's done it without government programs."
 
Dr. Cara Barker: For Women Only...And The Men Who Love Them! Top
"One of the lessons that I grew up with was to always stay true to yourself and never let what somebody else says distract you...When I hear about negative and false attacks, I don't really invest any energy in them because I know who I am." First Lady Michelle Obama Crazy or Sane? Knowing who we are: is there any more indispensable tool in the toolbox than this ability to chart our own course, to achieve the freedom to be who you really are? And, yet, as one reader reminded me last week, when you take a stand in who you are, and get on with the business that is yours to Voice, be prepared for some to call it nonsense, too much, and you, 'crazy.' The female species tends, however, to take these attacks personally, when this is unwise. What a great opportunity to recall that poster some years back. A man's dancing a jig, with a radio at his ear, his smile lines deep, like rivers. The caption reads: "Those who dance are thought to be crazy by those who cannot hear the music!" Is it really so crazy to do what your heart desires, if it doesn't harm you or anyone else? Maybe we need a new word: 'unsane,' as Thoreau put it: "....marching to your own drummer." A Treat to Share with You. An absolute gem was sent by one of my favorites, Anne Naylor . We can focus on those who might treat us poorly, or 'do our own thing.' Do yourself a favor, get comfy, and spend a few minutes lifting your spirit that just may get your through those the yuk in the atmosphere these days! As the Gratitude Dance illustrates, there are as many variations in expressing 'our way,' as there are snowflakes. Just as First Mom follows her own way, we, too, can be exceptional in ordinary things. What Can You Trust? With the old guard is crumbling, and its hard to know what can be trusted. But ladies, and men, who adore we awesome women, one thing is certain. Male or female, it is our heart that can be trusted, and not only, for Valentine's Day. In fact, greats like Joseph Chilton Pearce are bringing our attention to the fact that the heart is more than we've thought. There's an actual biology of transcendence, that is, Wisdom's neurotransmitters, that's located in the heart, as well as the brain. Remember those times when you had a strong knowing about which step to take, and you talked yourself out of it?' Trusting Your Inner G.P.S. Dismissing your own G.P.S. only makes matters worse. Neither as individuals, nor a people, can we go forward until we follow our innards, letting go distractions that are in our way of living life fuller, joyous lives. Female distractions live in endless forms. We, Strongly related, we cannot help ourselves! Hence, we take on criticism as though it were gospel. Awakening women know that what is primary is being in good relations with all life. As one reader pointed out, healingwise, the degree to which we walk the talk is best revealed behind the scenes, when the cameras aren't rolling. Her experience about the Obama's is revealing: "...I can tell you for sure that your take on Michelle is 100% right on. My eldest daughter suffers with a chronic debilitating illness & was literally gathered up by Michelle and allowed to sob into her bosom while she & Barack were on the campaign trail. Michelle didn't miss a beat, looking over to me & asking with complete sincerity, "And how is 'Mom' doing?" Both my daughter & I will never forget her authenticity, gentleness & wisdom. Michelle even said, "Please wait here. I'm getting my husband to come over here to speak with you." And she sure did! We must not give up hope or buy into the negative rants that so many would have us believe. Said Gandhi: "What we do may seem insignificant, but it is most important that we do it." Reader consensus summarizes what makes our First Lady so noteworthy: it is 'heart.' She is stands for family, without apology. She quietly considers her primary focus, and acts on it when the time is right. Priorities identified, distractions cleared, she radiates the essence of that classic Helen Reddy song from the 70's, "I am woman..." But what comes through in women like Michelle is not a bra-burning, military stance, but deep levels of caring interaction. Perhaps we needed the former to arrive at the latter. I realize that 'heart' has gotten a bad rap in business, politics and government. This is not new. Many years ago I remember my boss -- at a personal growth company -- saying to me: "Cara, the fact is that heart won't sell." Maybe, maybe not. To 'have heart' in the Big Show pretty much nets out as weakness, touchy feely, and dare I say it: 'women's work.' "Yes," says the patriarchy, "just leave that domain to the little woman. Leave me out of it. I've got to save the world." Now, how exactly are we doing so far without the expression of a heartfelt relatedness? It doesn't seem to be going particularly well with the approach of the past. Sometimes, the discounting sentiments come from men, sometimes, from the Sisters. Either way, they point to the need for deep relatedness, which critics call 'nonsense.' What is more important than a heart which touches humanity? What is more important than a heartfelt gesture in the garden with children, showing them, by example, that we have very real relations with the earth? If we take care of 'her,' she will take care of us. as we learn to take care of one another: neighbors standing side by side, helping one another through adversity the likes of North Dakota's flooding, and Mississippi's twin tornados. When we center in our heart, we cannot resist helping one another at times like this, there is no 'Me, Me, Me', but 'we', and 'you.' As I watched the footage in the evening news, I was reminded of the Sinclakwena truth, which Sir Laurens van der Post shared with me in London, one night over dinner: "The journey makes the stranger at dawn a neighbor beside the fire at night." Our spiritual development, the development of what is most humane in our species, progresses in stages. First, we perceive no other, then, differentiate between 'us and them.' But, ultimately, coming to the ground of our uniqueness, paradoxically, we return to the inescapable truth that what befalls you befalls me. With diligent attention, the compassionate heart for 'we' shines forth. Our hearts metaphorically whisper the direction for our next step, and we follow. Theophane, in Tales of a Magic Monastery , put it this way: "...I sat there in awe as the old monk answered our questions. Though I am usually shy...I found myself raising my hand. "Father, could you tell us something about yourself?" He leaned back. "Myself?" he mused. There was a long pause, "My name used to be Me. But now its You." Clearly, this has not happened for the teens recruited into the Mexican drug cartels, who express statements like: "It was fun killing my first person." Hard to imagine these young people were ever in any garden where someone was demonstrating healthy relations with creation, including themselves. So, I ask us each: what is sane, what is crazy? The Wrong Measure. Part of our world's problem is that we, women get distracted, adopt the wrong 'how am I doing' tapemeasure. We over compare, and underestimate. Too often, ladies, we buy into the notion that little heartfelt gestures are insignificant when compared to grand plans, and impressive resumes. When we stop trusting our own feminine Spirit's truth, our dance is dead. Yet, what could be more significant than one heart touching another? What could be more revitalizing, than a crazy little dance in the midst of a world gone unsane? What could be more honoring than expressing gratitude for our heart's desire, even if we've yet to take the seeds planted inside ourselves and bring them to full harvest? Once recognized, and we care less about "...negative and false attacks," and choose to not "invest any energy in them because (we) know who we are," the sooner we get this show on the road, and build a better world. More on this next week. First things, first, however. We must quiet the mind, get back to our authentic nature, and hasten slowly. To be continued... As always, it deepens the conversation to hear from you, and I'll respond as quickly as I can. What have you been told was 'crazy' that you knew was 'spot on?' Who have you observed who's willing to get out there and dance to their own music, and has made a difference in others' lives? Here's to joyful unsanity your way! Love, Cara If you'd like to simplify receiving post updates of these Wednesday articles, click the RSS feed orange box. Meanwhile, join us on Facebook's group, "The Heart Whisperers." See you next Wednesday! More on Michelle Obama
 
Rep. Alan Grayson: Stop Stealing Our Money Top
I was elected last November because the people wanted change. And nowhere is change more desperately needed than on Wall Street, which is apparently the only place in the world where you can steal from the taxpayers and then bill them for services rendered. So far, taxpayers have spent over $500 billion in direct cash infusions into banks and financial institutions, with guarantees of trillions more. Yet, these companies are still paying their executives lavish sums for driving their companies (and the entire economy) into the ground. I introduced a bill - the 'Pay for Performance Act' - to put an end to this theft. It's on the House floor today. It bans unreasonable and excessive pay to employees of financial institutions that are running on taxpayer money. The bill is based on two simple concepts. One, no one has the right to get rich off taxpayer money. And two, no one should get rich off abject failure. If the government owns a chunk of a bank, that bank must pay its employees reasonably, and all bonuses must be performance-based. But first, let's be clear about what has happened. The government owns stakes in many companies through the TARP program, and Congress tried to put executive compensation restrictions on those companies. Big banks, though, were able to carve out an exception for any contract signed before February. AIG executives drove a truck through that exception and stuffed their pockets with our money. This bill closes that loophole. The arguments against this bill are fairly predictable. The conservative Washington Examiner said that the bill grants the government 'extraordinary power' to set salaries. But the power it grants is pretty standard; the taxpayers are owners, and owners of companies set salaries for their employees. Of course, there is a simple solution to this problem for any financial institution bent on paying its employees unreasonable and excessive compensation - just pay the taxpayer money bank to the taxpayer, and then you are free to act responsibly or irresponsibly. This bill grants the government the authority to act like any other owner of an institution, and when that ownership stake goes away, so do these restrictions. Everyone agrees that Congress must act to reign in these excesses. These bad banks have come close to destroying our economy. They did so to enrich the small group of employees who made horrible, and in some cases, illegal bets. Calling these bad banks "casinos" is a disservice to casinos, who must actually by law hold money to back all the bets they've taken in. Calling these con artists "bank robbers" is a disservice to bank robbers, who can only steal as much money as the bank holds at the time, without tapping into taxpayer funds, too. It's time for action, and Congress is acting. More on Financial Crisis
 
Stevenson High School Paper Adviser Resigns Over Sex Issue Top
The popular adviser for the Stevenson High School newspaper will resign the post next year because of changes administrators made to the journalism program after a controversial issue detailed teenage sex life, student staff members said today.
 
Dodd's AIG Ties, Cash Shortage Threaten Senate Re-Election Bid Top
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd finds himself in an unlikely spot after three decades representing Connecticut: short on cash and bracing for a tough fight to keep his seat next year.
 
Karen Leland: Does Friendship Trump Technology? Top
My morning started out well enough, until the doorbell rang. It was the contractor there to discuss the driveway. This would be the same driveway his guys had hacked up over the past few days, only to discover that all was not as it had seemed on the surface and, "Oh, by the way," he said, "we accidentally demolished just a bit of the wrong section." Well, these things do happen. Instantly I know that my carefully conceived morning, which included a large cushion of time to arrive early to the conference, get a good seat and even stop for a Starbucks was now as demolished as my driveway. After an hour of conversation peppered with such phrases as "concrete retaining wall," "rebar reinforcements," "structural integrity" and "I'm sorry," finally a solution surfaces. Now I'm late. Forget the coffee--I will be lucky to get there before the first session starts. Murphy's law in action, halfway there I realize that in my morning madness I have forgotten the driving directions. I start running a list in my head of all my options. Should I turn around and go home? No, that will eat up too much time. Okay, first obvious choice: call information, get the phone number of the place and ask for the address and directions. If they don't answer, just get the address and stop at a gas station and look at a map. Good plan, except after three tries, information can't find the location, on the fourth try they do, and I get an answering machine. Undaunted, I think, "Maybe there is an Internet café around here where I could Google the information." Then I realize I could end up spending hours looking for an Internet café in an area of town I don't know. Alternatively, I could go into a coffee shop and beg someone to let me use his or her computer--no, too much risk of being arrested. Finally, in my desperation, I call my good friend Liza from my cell phone. Ring, ring. "Hello." "Liza, this is Karen. I'm sorry to call so early on a Saturday, and I'm sorry I'm so lame, but I need your help." Fortunately, Liza being a true friend and great human being laughs. "What do you need?" she says. I explain my predicament and ask her if she can please Google the place I am going, get an address, then MapQuest it and read the directions to me over the phone. "Sure," she says, "but I have to find my glasses first." A back and forth ensues but finally the objective is achieved and all is well. I am on the road and on track once again. Through some miracle I actually arrive ten minutes before the conference begins. I even have time to walk down to the corner coffee joint and have a cup of decaf. Clearly, my over-planing personality has its advantages. Our first assignment in the first session is to write a short piece about technology and its impact on our lives. Hmmm. I consider my morning madness and write down the one sentence I think sums it all up--"Technology is great, but a girl's got to have friends." Karen Leland is author of the recently released books Watercooler Wisdom: How Smart People Prosper In the Face of Conflict, Pressure and Change and Time Management In An Instant:60 Ways to Make the Most of Your Day . She is the co-creator of a new line of Productivity Pads from Time Tamer™ and the co-founder of Sterling Consulting Group . For questions, comments or to book Karen to speak at your next event, please e-mail kleland@scgtraining.com . More on Technology
 
Obama Admin Plans To Ease GM Into "Controlled" Bankruptcy Top
The government may seek to ease General Motors into what it calls a "controlled" bankruptcy, somewhere between a prepackaged bankruptcy and court chaos, by persuading at least some creditors to agree to a plan that would cleave the company into two pieces, according to people briefed on the matter. Instead of signing on every creditor as is typically required in prepackaged deals, administration officials are using as leverage the promise of taxpayer financing. Many regard the government as the only lender willing to step up with money -- in bankruptcy or out.
 
Michelle Obama Wears J. Crew Cardigan, Skirt To 10 Downing Street (PHOTOS) Top
When Michelle Obama visited 10 Downing Street on Wednesday morning, she wore her favorite label J. Crew. The British papers were impressed with Obama's physique. From the Daily Mail : This morning's slim-fitting skirts had keen observers guessing if the US First Lady's toned physique was down to more than just hours in the gym. A crease in the iridescent fabric halfway up Mrs Obama's right thigh looked remarkably similar to the VPL caused by so-called 'magic pants' - the body-slimming underwear made famous by Bridget Jones. More on Michelle Obama Style
 
GOP: Democrats Trying To "Pull A Franken" In NY-20 Top
National Republicans are warning prospective donors that Democrats are trying to "pull a Franken" and "steal" Tuesday's special election in upstate New York. Republicans made the charges in a fundraising email sent out early Wednesday morning after a too-close-to-call finish in the New York House race between Democrat Scott Murphy and Republican Jim Tedisco.
 
Redefinition Accomplished: The "Daily Show" Takes On Obama's Euphemisms (VIDEO) Top
Jon Stewart took on the Obama administration's rebranding efforts last night. The President has asked that his spokesmen no longer use the term "global war on terror," but instead "oversees contingency operation," and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently referred to terrorist attacks as "man-caused disasters." Stewart likened this to a rebranding disaster of his own in 2003. Looks like he's not having as much trouble finding humor under this administration as everyone thought he would! WATCH: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M - Th 11p / 10c Redefinition Accomplished comedycentral.com Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor More on Daily Show
 
Nicolas Sarkozy: To the G-20: Do What We Must for Global Growth, But Regulate All Finance Top
Nicolas Sarkozy is the president of France. This article was written exclusively for Global Viewpoint . LONDON -- For the second time in only five months, the leaders of the world's top 20 economies are meeting to seek a joint response to the unprecedented global economic crisis that we are going through. Since this crisis first began, I have advocated the idea that, when faced by a challenge of this magnitude, cooperation is a necessity, not an option. Already in September 2008, speaking to the United Nations General Assembly, I called upon the world to rally together to meet the crisis with a response based on coordination and cooperation. Brought forward in concert by the European nations, that initiative led to last November's G-20 meeting of heads of state and government in Washington, which laid the foundations for far-reaching reform of the international financial system. The London Summit must now enable us to go further, and to put into practice the principles that we established in Washington. The world expects that we speed up the reform of the international financial system. The world expects that we rebuild, together, a new form of capitalism, better regulated, with a greater sense of morality and solidarity. This is a precondition for mobilizing the economy and achieving sustainable growth. This crisis is not the crisis of capitalism. On the contrary, it is the crisis of a system that has drifted away from the most fundamental values of capitalism. It is the crisis of a system that drove financial operators to be increasingly reckless in the risks they took, that allowed banks to speculate instead of doing their proper business of funding growth in the economy; a system, lastly, that tolerated a complete lack of control over the activities of so many financial players and markets. At the Washington summit last November, we agreed on the four principles that would guide our response to the crisis: the need for enhanced coordination and cooperation, the rejection of protectionist measures, the strengthening of regulatory systems in financial markets, and a new global governance. What has been achieved to date? On the first two points, we have made a good deal of progress. We have managed to hold off the specter of protectionism, which, as history has taught us, inevitably compounds existing difficulties. Likewise, all nations have injected massive support for their economies, engaging in ambitious stimulus programs, while those countries that, like France, offer their citizens a high level of social protection have also significantly increased their levels of crisis-related welfare spending. Overall, taking into account all of these measures of support, the world's leading economies have made comparably gigantic efforts in response to the crisis. These measures are only now beginning to take effect and produce tangible benefits, but we must be ready to do even more if circumstances require it. This is the principle I will be defending in London: to do everything necessary for world growth. This week, however, we must also attach the same level of priority and sense of urgency to making progress on the issue of regulation of financial markets. World growth will be all the stronger for being sustained by a stable, efficient financial system and by the kind of renewed confidence in the markets that will enable resources to be better allocated, encourage lending to pick up again and allow the return of the flow of private investment capital toward developing countries. The Washington Summit enabled the establishment of several basic principles regarding regulation that must now be put into practical effect. We decided that in the future not one financial player, not one institution, not one product would be beyond the control of a regulatory authority. This rule must be applied to credit rating agencies, but it should also apply to speculative investment funds and, of course, to tax havens. On the latter point I want us to go very far indeed, adopting a resolution that clearly identifies these tax havens and sets out in detail both the changes we expect them to introduce and the consequences that will ensue, should they fail to respond accordingly. I may add that I am pleased to observe that the debate on tax havens initiated by the Washington Summit has already begun to bear fruit, in particular in Europe, where several countries have recently announced their intention to introduce legislative changes in response to the expectations of the international community. I also hope that we will make progress with our joint reflection on the necessary reform of the required disclosure standards and levels of prudential oversight for financial firms. The current regulations failed to prevent abuses. They even made the crisis worse. I shall be putting this aspect to the fore, since sadly in many countries it has not been getting the attention it deserves. With regard to the reform of global economic governance, it is my long-standing belief that we must offer much more space to emerging nations, in keeping with their real weight and with the responsibilities I would like to see them taking on. This holds true for all international bodies, but especially so for international financial institutions. I am particularly pleased by the expanded membership of the Financial Stability Forum. We must go even further in the future. Looking beyond the London Summit, in my view there will remain the task of pursuing a process of renewal throughout the entire multilateral system. I shall be making some proposals in this regard over the coming months. Lastly, we must provide answers to the problems of those who have been hit hardest by the impact of the crisis. This is why we must raise the level of funding we make available to the International Monetary Fund, so that it can aid those countries facing the most serious difficulties. I have taken up at the EU level the question of our contribution to the IMF: The Member States were ready and willing. I have also taken up at the EU level the question of our contribution to the risks that certain countries in Central and Eastern Europe are exposed to: Again, the Member States were ready and willing. I would also like to emphasize the need, the absolute necessity, for us to offer our support to the poorer nations. They are the victims of this crisis. Some now face the real risk of seeing their considerable efforts in recent years toward achieving the U.N. Millennium Development Goals be completely nullified, if we do not show solidarity. A few days ago I was in Africa. While there, I stated my belief that the destinies of Europe and the African continent are inextricably linked. We will be ready and willing to stand by Africa and by all developing nations in difficulty, on every continent. I remain convinced that the world can emerge from these troubled times stronger, more united and with a greater sense of solidarity than before, provided we have the will to do so. I am fully aware that we cannot achieve radical change overnight, that there is still a long way to go and that there may well be a need for other meetings, after London, in order to implement the reforms undertaken. I am certain, however, of the need to achieve practical results already this Thursday in London. Failure is not an option; the world would not understand it and History would not forgive us for it. © 2009 GLOBAL VIEWPOINT More on G-20 Summit
 
Josh Nelson: The Waxman-Markey Green Jobs Bill Isn't Perfect, But it is Absolutely Necessary Top
Representatives Henry Waxman and Ed Markey Tuesday at long last made public a discussion draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Some are calling this the opening shot in the battle over what the United States will do about global warming. Rep. Markey, not one who is prone to understatement, told a conference call for environmental bloggers Tuesday that this is "the beginning of an incredibly intense period of political debate in our country." Speaker Pelosi amplified this sentiment , explaining that "there's an inevitability to this that everyone has to understand." Chairman Markey emphasized that "we must have something on the president's desk for Copenhagen." By Copenhagen Markey is referring to the United Stations Climate Change Conference slated to take place this December in the Danish capitol. The annual meeting, which seeks to generate an agreement on reducing emissions among as many countries as possible, takes on added significance this year since it is considered by many to be the last chance to reach a major international climate agreement before the 2012 expiration of the Kyoto Protocol. Appropriately, Democrats in Congress are planning an aggressive schedule , to be wrapped up in "no longer than six months." - March 31, 2009: Discussion draft - April 6 - 17: Representatives return home for spring district work period - Week of April 20: Hearings - Week of April 27: Energy and Environment subcommittee mark up - Week of May 4: Full committee hearing - May 11: Full committee mark up begins The draft legislation, which is currently 648 pages (pdf), contains four titles: (1) a "clean energy" title that promotes renewable sources of energy and carbon capture and sequestration technologies, low-carbon transportation fuels, clean electric vehicles, and the smart grid and electricity transmission; (2) an "energy efficiency" title that increases energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy, including buildings, appliances, transportation, and industry; (3) a "global warming" title that places limits on the emissions of heat-trapping pollutants; and (4) a "transitioning" title that protects U.S. consumers and industry and promotes green jobs during the transition to a clean energy economy. As many have noted , the first two titles of the draft contain some crucially important energy and job-creation initiatives which will provide exactly the type of boost we need to kickstart the green economy of the 21st century: It has both a renewable electricity standard for utilities (25 percent in 2025, though "a fifth can be met with efficiency measures") and an energy efficiency resource standard -- two essential provision for jumpstarting a transition to a clean energy, green jobs economy, while keeping total energy bills low. It also establishes a Low Carbon Fuel Standard -- eventually, which is to say apparently after 2022. I can not stress enough the importance of many of the provisions in the first two titles of this legislation. The sustainable energy and energy efficiency incentives are a fundamental component of the job-creation engine we need to get Americans back to work. As Speaker Pelosi noted on Tuesday's call, "This is especially important because the economy is in bad shape." I agree wholeheartedly, and hope that members of the media and policymakers are able to transcend the utterly predictable economy vs. environment storyline forces of the status quo will trot out to attack the very best provisions in the bill. This is a well-funded false choice , and members of Congress who intend to be taken seriously on matters of climate and economics would be wise to treat it as such. A Democratic House aide familiar with the negotiations tells me that "taking into account concerns over allowances and offsets, if Congress passes something that looks anything close to what this draft looks like, then its a major coup." But it is just these concerns over allocations and offsets that have left some environmentalists skeptical of the discussion draft. Critically, the section on global warming, Title III, fails to address how allocations for greenhouse gas emissions allowances would be distributed. Joseph Romm, the blogger, physicist and climate expert who blogs at ClimateProgress.org , gives the bill a B+ overall , but notes that the energy provisions are significantly stronger than the climate sections. Natasha Chart seems to agree, calling it "a better job creation engine than a truly climate-friendly policy". Romm explained the significance of the draft's failure to address allowance allocation to me via email: The danger in not specifying how allowances are allocated is that you don't have revenues to return to consumers as tax cuts. From a policy perspective, you need to auction the vast majority of the permits, and ultimately auction all of them. From a political perspective, you need to do what Obama proposes, give the vast majority of the revenues back to the public, so they are held harmless (or, in fact, do better than break even because they can adopt efficiency measures). From a messaging perspective, giving the money back to the public is the key to undermining the "biggest tax" argument. The bill also includes a major disappointment on offsets, or as Romm calls them, rip-offsets. Jesse Jenkins, energy and climate policy director at the Breakthrough Institute and blogger at Watthead , emailed me a sharp explanation of the problem with the offset provision in Title III: As expected, the Markey-Waxman discussion draft includes several provisions to contain the costs of compliance including a heavy reliance on up to two billion metric tons of offsets, or enough to allow almost a third of all emissions permits required under the climate regulations to be swapped for offsets. Allowing that many offsets pokes a giant hole in the carbon cap, stuffs it with plenty of hot air , guts the carbon price signal for sectors we actually need to transform and - most importantly - robs us of billions of dollars of auction revenue that can and should be reinvested to accelerate and smooth the transition to a clean energy economy. Title I also includes some troubling language in support of coal. According to the summary of the draft , "The draft promotes development of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies to ensure a continuing place for coal in our nation's energy future." Talking about a clean energy future while working to ensure a "place for coal in our nation's energy future" is oxymoronic. Similarly, Romm refers to a provision that would allow dirty new coal plants to be built under the condition that they are retrofitted by 2025 as "counterproductive sop to the coal industry." There is much more to be happy about and much more to be upset about than what I've gone into here, and the details will be hashed out by the experts over the next several days, weeks and months. With that being said, here is what I think needs to happen. As the bill makes it way through Congress, several principles must be adhered to in order to ensure that we are doing all we can for both the economy AND the environment. These include, among other things, the following: Reducing coal consumption in the near term should be an underlying assumption of all provisions related to coal. Cost containment provisions such as banking and borrowing, offsets, and a so-called "strategic reserve" of allowances should be either eliminated or structured in a way that maintains the integrity of the environmental cap. All reduction targets should adhere to what the the latest credible science says is necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change. A very large majority of emissions allowances should be auctioned, rather than given away as "free allocations." When all is said and done, some form of this bill must be signed into law by President Obama before the international climate change negotations in Copenhagen in December. Domestically, many of the sustainable energy and energy efficiency provisions are exactly what we need to address our economic, environmental and energy woes simultaneously. These are simply some of the best policy ideas currently on the table, and the potential costs of not implementing them in short order is far too high to let less favorable provisions poison the legislation as a whole. Originally posted at FireDogLake.com. More on Nancy Pelosi
 
Diane Francis: Sarkozy correct to shut down anglo saxon cowboys Top
Conficker C, the April Fool's Day computer worm, is coming to a laptop near you and may wreak massive cyber-damage globally. Nobody knows how serious the threat will be or how benign. Coincidentally just as the worm turns, the hapless leaders in the G20 gather to meet. They represent 85% of the world's economies, or what's left of them. And their thankless task will be to try and arrest the destruction caused by the financial "worms" which were created by those financial gunslingers who inhabited London and New York City's financial districts. It is those "worms" that France's Nicolas Sarkozy wants to outlaw in the future by regulating the unbridled "Anglo Saxon" financial capitalism. He wants leaders this week to create a global financial regulator and is threatening to leave the assemblage if such a reform is not enacted. Listen to the French guy Sarko, never one to shrink from a stance, is correct on this one. Britain and the U.S. are not. Both favor regulation "lite" or in other words, business as usual which means, essentially, that the next generation of bandits will still be able to frolic financially in the global space without any curbs or cops in sight. In London and New York City no doubt. This is pretty shocking given the fact that the Americans are the biggest culprits because they failed to regulate their mortgage or financial sectors. They prefer publicly to blame human nature and the cyclical nature of capitalism, and refuse global controls on the basis that it represents an erosion of sovereignty. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is less graceful and simply dismisses Sarkozy's demand as "ridiculous". Middle ground? A compromise position could be to create an oversight body to insure that there are better domestic controls as well as to garner more cooperation among the world's regulators. Ironically, France has hardly been a shining example. The first dress rehearsal for the current catastrophe was the existence of a rogue trader at Societe Generale who blew billions under the noses of bank and official regulators, nearly busted a German institution then brought about a global stock market meltdown. A weekend rescue had to be cobbled together mounted by a handful of large countries. No penalties Even so, Sarkozy is right to demand international refereeing. The so-called Anglo-Saxon model spawned unprecedented excesses, crimes and a flight to the global regulatory vacuum that eventually brought down the world's economic system. Sarkozy, who treated Obama like a head of state before he was nominated, is no stranger to grandstanding. He is using this ploy to get attention to the fact that the Brits and Americans created the mess and should fix it now. A failure to impose strict reforms will destroy the global economy because trust in fair play or the rule of law will be missing in action. And business cannot be conducted, nor can hockey, if there are no referees on the ice. Maybe a game Sarko is also indulging in a form of brinkmanship because his sudden departure would send markets, and plans, plummeting. President Barack Obama, faced with anti-global forces at home, may not be totally unhappy with such demands if, as I suspect, it will lead to tougher regulations to please the French and bigger stimulus packages by the Europeans to please the Americans. Backdrop to all of this is the fact that today the OECD reported that unemployment will average 10% in 2009 and the drop in GDP for its 30 rich-club members will be ten times' worse than forecasted in the fall, or a decline of 4.3% in 2009. More crackdowns and tax haven bans on Diane Francis blog More on Economy
 
Rick Smith: In the New Millennium, Success is Based Entirely on Volunteers Top
The days of "buying" people's time, effort and attention are over. We are all volunteers. We actively choose who we will work for, and how hard we will work for them. We choose who our clients and partners will be. We choose whom to let into our inner circle of friends, those whom we will offer unconstrained support. And we choose our "weak ties," those outside of our day-to-day whom we will offer a new idea or perspective, and occasionally our direct assistance. To be successful, you need to earn every relationship. Leadership in the 21st century is based almost entirely on one's ability to recruit and inspire others toward the future you are trying to create. This thought became very clear to me this week, as I sat down to write the Acknowledgements section for my next book, The Leap: How Simple Changes Can Propel Your Career from Good to Great (Portfolio- 9/09). Within an hour, I had cited nearly 100 people who had made a material contribution to my life's successes in just the last few years. This exercise led me to three important observations. Observation 1: It takes an army. While we are closely interacting with perhaps a dozen people at any given moment, our longer-term success results from the collective contributions of many, many more. Achievement may have one author, but it has 100 writers. Observation 2: Success is a table with dozens of legs. The second thing I noticed was just how many different points of contribution there were. There were those who helped me generate ideas, and those who simply offered (critical) moral support. There were early customers who took a risk, and early partners who contributed time, experience and tangible assets. There were early employees who helped us shape our model, and employees who arrived later who dramatically raised the bar. No matter how singular your objective, achieving it always requires developing and managing a broad contribution system. You can't win by leading one group and ignoring others. You need to bring them all into the tent. Observation 3: They were ALL volunteers! This was my most fascinating discovery. Looking through the entire list, more than 80% of them were not "on the payroll". These were not people that had offered their support based only on expectations of compensation. They were customers who needed what I was offering, partners who wanted me to be successful, professionals who believed in what I was trying to create and wanted to help. As for the 20% who were directly compensated? Turns out they were volunteers as well. Bono and Robert Redford were both given a significant stipend for contributing to my business, but they each turn down 100 such invitations for every 1 they agree to. Web development, PR, marketing, legal and other vendors were the best in the business, and I had to "sell" everyone of them on why they should work with me. My employees all had other options, and these days, they don't mind exercising their right to walk out the door. In the end, it was the goal that brought them in, and it was our passionate pursuit of it that made them stay. Take a moment to write down your Acknowledgement list. Have you taken time to let them know you are grateful for their contributions? Would you show up on their acknowledgements list? How many volunteers do you have working for you? Command and control leadership is dead. To be successful, you need to completely let go of this notion, even if you have a team of employees under you. You can choose where to lead them, but know that they will most certainly exercise the choice to follow. What are your thoughts on leadership in today's work environment? Let us know! This post was originally published at RickSmith.me Friend Rick Smith on Facebook . Follow Rick Smith on Twitter .
 
David Letterman's Ad For The New GOP (VIDEO) Top
David Letterman wants to help the ailing GOP and last night he did so by producing a new television ad for them called "The Party of Yes." It details their positive stance on issues and tells voters that they will be ready to lead in 2028. WATCH: More on David Letterman
 
Disney Now The Largest Media Company Top
March 31 (Bloomberg) -- Time Warner Inc.'s spinoff of its cable division dropped the New York-based owner of Time magazine and Warner Bros. to third place among U.S. media companies, behind Walt Disney Co. and News Corp. Disney, based in Burbank, California, reported fiscal 2008 sales of $37.8 billion. Excluding $17.2 billion in cable revenue, Time Warner's 2008 sales totaled $29.8 billion.
 
Wanda Sykes Getting Saturday Late Night Show On Fox: Report Top
Fox is planning on launching a new Saturday late night show featuring Wanda Sykes, according to sources with knowledge of the network's plans. The show is said to be more in the mold of Bill Maher's HBO show than a typical talk show. It will air Saturdays at 11 and will be an hour long. The network is considering launching the show either this fall or in January, when the network has historically launched many projects so as to capitalize on the promotional power of the American Idol audience.S
 
Roy Spence and Haley Rushing: The New Era Of Purpose Top
For too long now, the answer to the question, "What's the purpose of business?" has been something along the lines of 'to maximize profit and increase shareholder value.' But could the era of relentless sole focus on shareholder value now be over? In a Financial Times article on March 12th, even Jack Welch declared the obsession with short-term profits and share-price gains as "a dumb idea." We say, "Amen." At best, it acknowledges the critical role that profitability and strong performance plays in making a business viable. But as Ed Freeman, Professor at Darden, once said, "Profits are necessary to a business, just as red blood cells are necessary to a human. While you may need red blood cells to live, the purpose of life is not to create red blood cells." At worst, the exclusive focus on shareholder value creates a zero-sum game mentality that can often create pressure to exploit workers, pinch suppliers, fudge the numbers, and generally do whatever it takes to drive value for the shareholder at the expense of all other stakeholders. So what's an alternative answer to the question: What is the purpose of business? The purpose of business is simply this - have a purpose! Have an object toward which the organization is striving that makes a positive difference in the lives of the people you are serving. Have something that you're fighting for that captures the hearts and imagination of your people. Find, as Victor Frankl said, 'a concrete assignment in the world which demands fulfillment,' and fill it. And guess what? The profitability and shareholder value will follow. Having a Purpose at the heart of a business is not a distraction from managing the bottom line. It drives the bottom line. In fact, purpose drives everything . On a very pragmatic level, when an organization has a clear understanding of its Purpose, navigating tough decisions becomes much easier. It's real simple -- does something further the over-arching Purpose of the organization or not? If it does, you do it. If it doesn't, you don't. Allocating resources, hiring employees, planning for the future and determining success metrics can all be viewed through the lens of the Purpose. And you never make a decision that will violate, or put at risk, the fundamental reason for your existence. Purpose holds you steady. It acts as the anchor to hold you steady and see you through when you're getting knocked all over the place. If a company doesn't have a clear sense of their reason for existence beyond making money, they'll begin making decisions out of fear and desperation and can easily get thrown off course. Witness the grasping for straws we see all around us. Purpose also propels you forward - acting as a catalyst for innovation. It provides the motivation and direction necessary to create meaningful innovation in the marketplace. The most innovative companies on the planet inspire their employees to think creatively by tapping into their personal passions and commitment to a higher cause. P&G unleashed a wave of innovation when it decided to take Pampers out of the 'dry butts' business and get into the 'baby development' business. That focus provided the catalyst for innovation that catapulted Pampers from a good- to a great- brand in relatively short order. Compare this with the motivating effect of telling a workforce to 'be innovative because we need to maximize shareholder value.' Purpose recruits passionate people. The more purpose driven an organization is, the more it can attract passionate, talented people based on shared values and commitment to a common purpose. Purpose is going to be a major factor in winning the war for talent; and, at the end of the day, the talent of the organization is the ultimate determinant of its success. Millennials, in particular, want to apply their talents toward something they believe in--and business, as it is run today, is decidedly not something they have much faith in. When people are working in the service of a Purpose that they recognize as important, it brings a level of energy and vitality to the work at hand. It can transform the work environment from a soul-depleting experience (imagine a scene out of 'The Office' - where Jim nods off while describing his job to the documentarian) - to an enlivening experience, where people are fired up to get to work and make a difference. And ultimately, that's one of the greatest benefits of shifting the purpose of business from just profit maximization to fulfillment of a worthy purpose. A book like Purpose Driven Life wouldn't have 30 million copies in print if people weren't seriously interested in living lives of Purpose. Since work is where most people spend most of their time, imagine how much happier the world could and would be if people felt like what they did mattered. If people felt like they were using their talents fulfilling a purpose they could feel good about. So, if business leaders are really interested in creating value - create it for everyone. Have a purpose that drives everything that you do and pursue it in a way where everyone wins: employees, customers, vendors, the community, the planet, and, yes, the shareholders too. Business leaders today need to get over the belief that principles and profit can't exist in harmony with one another. We believe history will show, that companies that stand for nothing but the pursuit of profit, won't be left standing in the long run. Rather, it's the businesses driven by a purpose--driven to make a real difference in the lives of ALL of the people they serve--that will win in the marketplace. We have an opportunity, right now, to usher in the era of purpose. Let's begin.
 
Bridget Moynahan's Friend Slams Gisele Top
A friends of Bridget Moynahan's has hit out at Gisele following her comments to the May issue of Vanity Fair (if you missed them - scroll down) about Moynahan's son. Moynahan is the mom of Gisele's toddler stepson John, who was conceived with Tom Brady just before the pair broke up and he starting dating Gisele. The now-newlyweds found out about Moynahan's pregnancy when they had been dating for two months. Gisele has yet to meet Moynahan, Vanity Fair reported. One of Moynahan's friends unloaded to the NY Post : "If Gisele loved Bridget's child like he was '100 percent her own,' then she would not talk about him in the press. Discretion and respect are not either of Gisele or Tom's virtues, as was evidenced even when the child was still unborn and they publicly flaunted their relationship without any discretion whatsoever. "If Tom is such a great father as everyone likes to say, then you would think that he'd respect the privacy of his young child and would ask his wife not to use his son as a publicity prop and a subject of public discussion." In Vanity Fair, read it all here , Gisele not only said John was "100 percent her child" but also: He's my little angel -- the sweetest, most cuddly, loving baby. I feel blessed to have him in my life. I understand that he has a mom, and I respect that. But to me, it's not like because somebody else delivered him, that's not my child -- I feel it is, 100 percent." Moynahan's friend's final slam was, "Hey Gisele -- real mothers don't call their kids 'it.' "
 
10 Ways To Pitch Going Green Without Saying "Environment" Top
Here are alternate suggestions to make if you've encountered someone stubborn. # "You can lower your heating bills by 10% with proper insulation." # "Making repairs makes me feel that I can master technology and it is not the master of me." # "Riding the train across country is a vacation in itself." More on Green Living
 
Rachel Thebault: Writing "The Letter" Top
How often have you had an experience as a customer that was SO awful your immediate reaction is "I have to write them a letter!"? Last week I had, hands-down, the worst experience I've ever had with air travel. My husband, two daughters, and I were coming back to New York from San Diego. Without getting into too much detail, our debacle started with our 6:00 a.m. Delta flight being overbooked (a business practice I begrudgingly understand). An abrasive, chip-on-his-shoulder gate agent apathetically "tried" to get us seats on the flight. When he finally did, he wouldn't print them, because my husband (who had returned the rental car and was behind us in security) was not with us and, "how did we even know he would show up at all?"--a comment that the implications of which did not escape my 4 year-old daughter. After not getting on our flight, the same agent made a meager effort to rebook us--at best we would arrive 48 hours later having traveled through who-knows-how-many cities to get home. We ended up purchasing full-fare tickets on Continental and eventually arrived only 12 hours later than expected. Of course, our luggage did make it on our original flight, but since we took a different airline home, Delta was in no rush to get it to us. Another 24 hours, 14 phone calls and $33 later we had our bags. Which, of course, we paid $60 to check in the first place. So the first thing I did was sit down to write The Letter. I haven't gotten very far. Even as I sit and write this, I am procrastinating on The Letter. It's not easy to take all your passionate anger and put it succinctly on one page. Instead, I started thinking about a major difference between big and small businesses. Anonymity vs. Accountability. I could write "to whom it may concern," but have no guarantee that it actually concerns anybody. I will send it off to Delta's "Customer Care Center," but the sheer fact that they have people whose specific job it is to sort through these letters somehow makes my letter already feel less important. On the other hand, when one of my customers has a complaint, whether by phone, email or in-person, it comes straight to me. Sometimes it stems from a one-time mistake, and I am grateful to hear about it so we can prevent it from happening again. Sometimes we get feedback that results in us tweaking a product or service for the benefit of all future customers. Sometimes people complain just because they are complainers. Occasionally, it's a scam--someone looking for a freebie. About a year ago, we got an email from a man who said he had been visiting New York and loved our cookies. He wanted to bring some chocolate peanut butter cookies home to his mother, but when he arrived at her house he saw that they were chocolate caramel, which she could not eat with her dentures. Could we please ship the proper cookies to the following address in Las Vegas? I was upset about the mistake and apologized, asking for a few more details to identify how to fix it. I didn't hear back. Six months later, we received another email from a man saying how much he enjoyed visiting our store on his last business trip. His fiancée is a huge fan of our chocolate caramel cookies, and he bought some to bring home to her, but when he arrived home he realized they were the wrong cookies. Could we please ship the proper cookies to the following address in Las Vegas? I couldn't believe I wasted time worrying about this scammer. Now all emails go through my manager before they get to me. I wonder if I will reach a point where I'm totally jaded by these scams and the people who complain for the sake of complaining? Right now I subscribe to the philosophy of Danny Meyer at Union Square Hospitality Group: "the customer may not always be right, but he or she should always be heard." At some point, do you no longer have the time to "hear" your customers? Or maybe there are just too many layers for the customer to get through to be heard? As someone with a legitimate complaint, it makes me feels disheartened. When push comes to shove, how much power does The Letter really have? What do I want my letter to Delta to accomplish? Reimbursement? I seriously doubt they will send us a check that covers our incremental cost, and a few crappy travel vouchers are no good if I'm never going to fly Delta again. Retribution? Yes, that would be nice, but doubtful. Therapy? I have a blog for that. Who knows if The Letter will actually get written? I'm sure I'm not alone in this boat--all fired up and then drained of all effort when it actually comes down to it. It's a lot easier to just complain to my family and friends and tell them to never fly Delta again. I recounted our story to my mother, and she shook her head the whole time. When I finished, she sighed, "you know, you should write them a letter."
 
Glamour Magazine Getting Google Gadget Top
Like many of Conde Nast's magazines, Glamour has struggled to build a presence online to match its considerable influence and cachet in print. That may be changing. Through a combination of syndication and distribution agreements as well as an infusion of new content, traffic to Glamour.com has more than quadrupled over the last year, hitting 1.4 million unique visitors in February, according to Nielsen. Now the publisher hopes to get a boost from Google. Beginning Wednesday, iGoogle, which allows users to create a custom version of the Google home page with select regions of content, or "gadgets," will begin hosting a gadget for Glamour.com. The Glamour.com gadget potentially opens the site to an audience of tens of millions of iGoogle users. More on Conde Nast
 
Newspapers Team With Zillow For Real Estate Search Top
LOS ANGELES — Scores of U.S. newspaper Web sites will become gateways for visitors to find homes for sale through Zillow.com as part of a new initiative between the real estate Web site and a group of 11 major newspaper publishers. The Tampa Tribune and 100 newspapers published by Community Newspaper Holdings Inc. are scheduled to add the Zillow search engine and other site content to their Web sites' real estate sections beginning Wednesday, Zillow said. Once visitors enter a city, address or similar search term into the Zillow search box, their Web browser will connect them to a version of the Zillow site _ co-branded with the newspaper _ where they can comb through their search results, find local market data and other real estate content. In all, 180 newspapers, including the Richmond Times-Dispatch and Winston-Salem Journal, plan to update their Web sites over the next few months to include the real estate search features, Zillow said. The Web search initiative is the latest offering from Zillow and its newspaper partners, although not all of the 282 newspapers it partnered with two years ago have signed on to the initiative. Last year, Zillow and the newspaper consortium launched an online advertising network in which newspapers sell featured listings and other ads on the real estate portal to local advertisers. In 2007, they began a revenue-sharing partnership that allows the newspapers to sell classified real estate ads on Zillow's site. More on Newspapers
 
New "Real Housewives" Messes Top
Yesterday we broke the news that Countess Luann de Lesseps was splitting from her count. Now come whispers that Ramona Singer, the highly-caffeinated maker of religious jewelry, is persona non grata at her daughter, Avery's, school. One parent at Sacred Heart said, "All of us and the school are very embarrassed by Ramona's actions on the show. The school has asked her to take Avery off the show, but she refused... Meanwhile, listings have been posted with Corcoran for not only the de Lesseps' Bridgehampton home, but for "Housewife" Kelly Bensimon's Further Lane "cottage" as well.
 
Chris Weigant: Obama Declares Himself President-For-Life (No Fooling!) Top
What a morning! I awoke to the sounds of my clock radio, and of President Obama giving an extraordinary speech across the airwaves. I'll just transcribe what I heard for all of you here, without comment: I, President Obama, have taken this opportunity to speak to all of America. Because I'd like to make a confession to everyone. While my efforts at reaching out across the aisle in Washington have been mixed, at best, I have to admit that my efforts at reaching out to the mainstream media have been somewhat less successful. So, in order to lay to rest some rumors and downright conspiracy theories, and in a sincere effort to shelter the media from the embarrassment their unfounded stories have undoubtedly caused them, I'd like to come right out and admit a few things to everyone. To begin with, my Inauguration speech was horrible. Boy, that was an absolute stinker of a speech, huh? About the only thing worse was Aretha Franklin's hat, right? And when I gave the speech, although only a few right-winger pundits picked up on it, when I said I valued "hard work," that was actually code, which hid the fact that I am really a secret conservative. Yes, it's true. As we all know, liberals never did a stick of work in their lives, and so I was truly speaking to my natural constituency there -- conservatives. But that's not all. I am also a secret shill for Wall Street bankers, whom I love more than my own children. I personally approved each and every one of their bonuses, even the ones that happened before I took office. I also gave them all a personal and individual pat on the back for their efforts to destroy the American economy. Because, I am a secret Socialist, and want to destroy capitalism in America... by giving the capitalists more and more money. If this sounds confusing, I'm sorry, but it truly is a grand design of a plan to secretly obliterate everything that every American holds dear. You will just have to bear with me, as I admit to all the sins the media has accused me of, in order to validate the media's own enormous and outrageous salaries and bonuses. At the same time (I know this gets confusing, but please, bear with me until the end), I have moved forward on my secret plan to destroy all American business by signing a law which gave women the right to sue when they are paid less than men. This will bring American business to its knees, because -- secretly -- I am a Socialist. Also, by the way, I am a stooge for former Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich. I get all my marching orders from him. And I bought and paid for the successor to my Senate seat from Blago. It was all worked out long before last year's election. I raked in a profit on that deal, as did Blaggy. See, we're such good friends that I call him "Blaggy," and he doesn't even mind. I am also, I have to admit, a secret Populist. I have had my operatives fanning out across America, stoking populist rage amongst the people, which all fits into my Master Plan to pass a constitutional amendment to assure that CEOs get paid 500 times what an average worker makes, forever. If this is all a bit confusing, I beg you, bear with me until you can see the "Big Picture" here. Part of this plan was to bankrupt the Treasury by replanting the grass on the National Mall in D.C. Again, this will all make sense in the end. The stimulus plan was actually a step towards the United Socialist Republics Of America. Also, I am secretly forcing all Republicans to kowtow to Rush Limbaugh, just to make them look silly. And you don't want to know how I have the leverage to do so, you'll just have to trust me on this one. During the campaign, I secretly promised America that I would do nothing -- not a single thing -- unless it met the media's definition of "bipartisanship," which appears to be: "what Rush Limbaugh agrees with." I really did promise over and over again on the campaign trail (although you may not have noticed it, because it was secret) not to push for any bill in Congress that did not have at least 80 or 90 percent support from the Republicans, but you can't possibly remember this, because I have wiped all your minds with my anti-memory ray which our conquering overlords from Planet ZX-12 gave me. Whoops! Wasn't supposed to say that... ahem... give me a minute here... [ZZZAP!] OK, forget you heard that last bit, OK? As I was saying, I am moving forward on my plan to destroy the middle class of America by giving 95 percent of all workers a big tax cut. This will all become clear, I promise, by the end. You see, I'm secretly waging class warfare. By capping all executive pay in America, and secretly rewriting every single worker's employment contract, even though they are sacred for everyone (except auto workers, of course). Because I am a secret Socialist. Except, of course, for those who belong to existing unions. I know, this is confusing, and I apologize for it. Except when I am a secret Capitalist, bailing out undeserving Wall Street CEOs, and forcing Joe The Plumber to pay for it all. Speaking of Wall Street, I am (of course) personally responsible for the market's fall. Except, of course, I am not responsible at all when the market goes up, since that is a subject which isn't even newsworthy enough to mention, in the midst of a recession. Because I am betting on the failure of the American economy. Yes, it's true, I am actually a Marxist. I am also secretly working with Rush Limbaugh to insure the failure of the American economy. He has his reasons, I have mine. Mine are the total dismantling of American capitalism, and ushering in the horrible, horrible European-style Socialism (where nobody ever goes bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- what sort of Hell on Earth is that?). I only appoint people to my administration who have never ever paid any income taxes whatsoever . Leona Helmsley is our model, when vetting important positions here. I secretly hate bipartisanship. This may shock you, but I really do. I personally forced every House Republican to vote against my stimulus package, and had to fight hard with some of them -- who put America's economic future above partisanship -- but in the end, I had my way, and convinced them all to vote against it. My presidency is an abject failure because I keep passing bill after bill with no Republican support whatsoever. Except on the bills half the Republicans vote for, but I don't worry about them -- because the media never points them out. Such massive, massive bipartisanship actually embarrasses me, so I'm quite happy that the media don't point them out. Whew! Because bipartisanship is "Issue Number One" for all Americans, rating consistently higher on poll after poll than "getting something done." American voters are actually insulted when Democrats pass bill after bill to put America back on track, because of the lack of bipartisanship. Ask around in any coffee shop in the country, you'll hear that outcry for bipartisanship over the laughably inadequate "getting something done" nonsense I and my fellow Democrats are peddling. As president, my paltry poll numbers prove that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are truly the puppeteers who are pulling my strings. I can barely hold on to two-thirds of the entire country who think I'm doing a good job, which is just absolutely disgraceful, especially when stacked up against my predecessors' ratings. A mere two-thirds of the country agrees with what I'm doing! I look at poll after poll after poll, and that number refuses to change. It stays rock-steady at a pathetic sixty-percent-plus, much to my dismay. I hang my head in shame. I am also ashamed at getting my stimulus bill passed so quickly. Republicans, those masters of bipartisanship, offered their sincere efforts to delay this bill for months and months, and -- I admit -- I ignored them. As a consequence, this bill was passed so fast that the media did not have time to fully rant and rave over it, as they are so used to doing. I offer my apology to them, for ruining their twelve-part series: "Why Obama is diminished and powerless as a president." Secretly, of course, I agreed with them and celebrate every job lost in America, since it will make it easier, in the end, to implement my master plan of Socialism-in-America. Also, contrary to my public statements on my plan to institute some sort of safety net for the foreclosure crisis, I secretly want every American to lose their home. I am working night and day on this, secretly, with ACORN, who is also doing their best to destroy free elections across the country (in their spare time). My health care plans, developed secretly, will bar one and all from ever seeing their family doctor ever again. We will round up anyone who has ever referred to themselves as "family doctors" in a camp in Wyoming, and it's best you don't ask what is going to happen to them. Because they our are biggest bar towards instituting not only socialized medicine, but government-run medicine, where you will have to fill out a twelve-page form every time any member of your family opens an aspirin bottle in your medicine cabinet. I have been spending and (of course, just ask the mainstream media) actually losing political capital with every step I have taken. My political capital has gone from having two-thirds of the country behind me... to having only a paltry two-thirds of the country behind me. This reckless "spending" of my political capital will leave me "bankrupt" of political capital in a few weeks, because I put all my political capital in a fund run by Bernie Madoff. So (for all but the two-thirds of America who is behind me, no matter what inane story the media obsesses over), I am absolutely bereft of such political capital, and I had better follow the media's lead on what to obsess over from now on. Speaking of losing political capital, the Democratic Party is in danger of disappearing altogether. There is absolutely no party unity, and there are massive, massive fights within the party, as evidenced by vote after vote in Congress where they all vote for my plans. The Republican Party is not -- I repeat not -- in a struggle of trainwreck proportions right now; it is actually the Democratic Party who cannot seem to agree on anything (other than when they all vote together in Congress for my agenda, of course). I am secretly an ultra-liberal, I have to admit at this point. I am absolutely committed to abject failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, as evidenced by all those neo-cons who are now agreeing with me. I also secretly sabotaged Bobby Jindal's speech, by forcing him to talk about volcano monitoring. And I, heartless beast that I am, forced Sarah Palin to actually sell her Naughty Monkey shoes on eBay. I am secretly a big fan of earmarks. Especially earmarks sponsored by Republicans who then vote against them. Secretly (oh, so secretly) on the campaign trail, I actually agreed with John McCain (although I did it secretly enough that nobody ever actually quoted me doing so) that I would veto any earmark ever presented to me. The American people are turning on me in big numbers, because of the blatant hypocrisy I showed in not living up to my opponent's promises on the campaign trail on earmarks. And I lost such a massive amount of political capital by doing so that my approval rates actually tanked, from two-thirds approval -- to a shameful and pathetic two-thirds approval. I am also secretly plotting, daily, to pass the agenda that I hid from the American people by telling them exactly what I would do if elected, every chance I got on the campaign trail. This is part of my Grand Secret Plan for America, which I kept a secret by talking about it with every opportunity I had. I know this is mystifying to the mainstream media, since they never take any politician's words seriously, but this is (of course) all part of my Grand Design. Part of this, of course, is forcing Republican governors (over their strident objections) to accept stimulus money so their states don't go bankrupt. I did this by waterboarding them, until they agreed to save their own rear ends by accepting this free money. The next stage in my plot to usher in Socialism in America is Obamacare, where I allow government plans to compete with private health insurance. This will, of course, force all Americans to wait 18 months to get a doctor's appointment for a flu shot. All part of my plan. My secret gay agenda is to force everyone (of same sex) in the military to have sex with each other, to destroy America's armed forces. The media is correct, of course (how could they ever be wrong in any way? ). I am simply trying to do too much. I am so incompetent that I cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. I want it all, and I want it now. I can never ever succeed with any part of any of my massively overwhelming plans, because it is all just too much for any man to concentrate on. Washington will never progress, especially if I don't take months and months on one single issue, giving the opposition plenty of time to shoot my ideas down and rally public support against me. It is foolish for me to try to do more than my opposition can handle, because the American people will be really really upset with me if I deliver on any part (let alone any major part) of the things I have promised them. I'm truly, truly sorry for the bipartisan votes I have managed to get in Congress, because it goes against the media narrative that I secretly hate bipartisanship. I personally engineered this embarrassment just to make the media look bad, and not to actually get something done in a bipartisan fashion. I cannot get my message out whatsoever, as the media has so accurately pointed out. While it may seem confusing, I am also dangerously over-exposed in the media, which means I run the risk of my message being heard by far, far too many people. I am trying to do too much, most of which is secret. Part of this secret plan is to force the Republicans to become the "Party of No" so that they may reinvent themselves as the stalwart champions who are resisting progress and success at every turn. This may sound confusing, but it will all become clear in the 2012 election, trust me. I am trying to do too much, and Americans hate it. They hated my Leno and ESPN appearances, and are getting tired of me. They can't stand me. Except, of course, for the two-thirds who still support me. And it goes without saying that I hate the Special Olympics, and the entire Kennedy extended family. In fact, I have a massive admission to make. I am actually a very bad public speaker. I cannot manage to put together an English sentence without the "crutch" of a TelePrompTer handy. This is proven out by my use of such in my last press conference, where I used a TelePrompTer for eight minutes -- eight whole minutes -- before answering questions off the top of my head, with no TelePrompTer, from the White House press corps for another fifty-two minutes, of course. I am also guilty of secretly forcing Americans to do math, by releasing a budget with actual numbers in it. I now see that the Republicans are much smarter than I, since they released their budget plan with absolutely zero numbers in it. I am obviously asking too much from the country by using "facts" and "numbers" in my budget, and will refrain from doing so in the future. And, contrary to my recent comments, I have a secret plan to legalize not only marijuana but also all other drugs, and sell them to your nine-year-old daughter. After offering her a free sample, of course. I also have a secret plan to let Portuguese secret agents into the White House, in the form of our daughters' new dog. I apologize profusely for this lapse.
 
1,606 Ducks Died Landing On Toxic Waste Pond Top
EDMONTON, Alberta — Eleven hundred more ducks died after landing on a toxic waste pond in northern Alberta last year than was originally estimated, a Canadian oil sands official acknowledged Tuesday. The carcasses of 1,606 ducks were collected from the oily waters, compared to the 500 originally counted, Syncrude Canada chief executive Tom Katinas said. The deaths of the mallards last April drew widespread attention and prompted Prime Minister Stephen Harper to lament that Canada's international reputation had been tarnished by it. Syncrude was accused of failing to prevent the birds from landing near the toxic waters and faces a maximum $634,000 fine. Canadian law requires that all such ponds have the noisemaking devices to scare the birds and prevent them from landing. The company has said a spring snowstorm delayed the deployment of noisemaking cannons. Katinas released the updated figure after an Alberta court granted Syncrude more time to enter a plea. He apologized for the incident but did not explain why Syncrude is only now acknowledging the larger number. Oil sands form an important Canadian industry but the process of separating out the oil has been criticized by environmentalists as highly polluting. The pond contained waste from the separation process. Dozens of toxic tailings ponds have been building up over 40 years in northern Alberta. A plan announced earlier this year aims to force companies to clean up the sludge over several decades. More on Canada
 
Stephen Colbert Rips Apart Glenn Beck: Building His Career On 9/11 (VIDEO) Top
Stephen Colbert ripped apart Fox News host (and New York Times cover boy) Glenn Beck Tuesday night, mocking his 9-12 project, meant to conjure the spirit of compassion and camaraderie Americans felt on September 12, 2001. "We weren't told how to behave that day after 9/11, we just knew," Beck says to describe the project. "It was right, it was the opposite of what we feel today. Are you ready to be the person you were that day after 9/11, on 9/12?" "Ready!" Colbert shouted, decked out in a gas mask, holding a gun, and wearing adult diapers. Colbert then used a classic "Daily Show," exposing the hypocrisy of Beck's 9-12 project by highlighting comments he made on September 9, 2005. "This is horrible to say, and I wonder if I'm alone in this," Beck said on his radio program that day, "you know it took me about a year to start hating the 9/11 victims' families? I don't hate all of them. I hate probably about 10 of them. But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining. And we did our best for them." "The 9-12 project is not for families directly affected by 9/11, just people building their careers on it," Colbert said. Colbert went on to mock Beck's now infamous tendency to cry, and to launch his own "democratic experiment, the 10-31 project." "It will be scare and balanced!" he joked. Watch: The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c The 10/31 Project comedycentral.com Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest More on Stephen Colbert
 
HEIDI KLUM PRANK: Undercover For "I Get That A Lot" On April Fools Top
CBS [for the show "I Get That A Lot] celebrates April Fool's Day by putting Heidi Klum in a pizza parlor for the sole purpose of pranking the public. "I didn't wear makeup and I had my hair in a bun with a pencil in it," Heidi tells ET. She says no one told her how to disguise herself, but she felt that if she showed up in full makeup, she would be too easily recognized. "I got to be the pizza girl. I got to be someone I am normally not. I was quite rude to people. I would bite their pizza and give it to them. I would drop the dough on the floor, pick it up and use it," the "Project Runway" host continues.
 
Australian Woman Killed Man Over Her Barking Dog Top
A Sydney woman was found guilty today of fatally stabbing a neighbour who complained about her barking dog. A New South Wales Supreme Court jury convicted Katrina Megan Whitmore, 26, after two days of deliberations. Joseph Durrant, 47, was on his way home from Australia Day celebrations on the morning of 27 January, 2007, when he argued with Whitmore in her yard about her dog. Prosecutors said Whitmore threatened Durrant then attacked him with a knife. "She does say that she told people not to speak to her dog like that," prosecutor Chris Maxwell told the court. A witness told the court he was at a party next door when he saw Whitmore run down her driveway brandishing a knife. "Katrina was standing behind the guy (who was) on the ground trying to get up," said witness Adam Duncan. "He got up (and I'm) pretty sure Katrina stabbed him in the neck." Whitmore has acknowledged there was a struggle but denied wielding a knife. She will be sentenced on 29 May. Co-accused Steven Spiro Sotiropoulos, who was involved in the fight and charged alongside Whitmore, was found not guilty of murder. Read more from the Independent. More on Australia
 
President Obama's Eco-Gaffe (PHOTOS) Top
It doesn't seem like so long ago that the president was first caught shirtless , inspiring "oohs" and "aahs" all across the land. You probably don't recall, though, the other revelation that came along with the knowledge that our president is cut like a Greek statue of someone in very good shape. I'll give you a second. OK, give up? The revelation was that the president drinks bottled water . Oh, say it ain't so, Joe! Bottled water? I'm disappointed, Mr. President-Elect. The message now becomes: Hey, kids! Want to be healthy and look great in a swimsuit like Barack Obama? Exercise for 45 minutes every morning and drink plenty of Aquafina (or Poland Springs, or whatever the hell). Like it or not, bottled water is something to be concerned about. There's a lot of waste involved -- and a lot of gross, toxic stuff. So it is with sadness that I bring you these two photographs from the president's trip across the pond: More on Barack Obama
 
FAS 157-e: Treasury Plan Possibly Undermined By Accounting Change Top
Congress has proposed a rule change that could undermine the Treasury's toxic asset plan, the Wall Street Journal reported . Congress will vote Thursday on a proposal, FAS 157-e, that would give banks more discretion over mark-to-market accounting. Mark-to-market accounting requires that banks mark illiquid assets to their market values--often much lower than their intrinsic values--leading to large write-downs. Banks argue this is unfair because they are not necessarily planning to sell the assets, and that the market value is temporary. Proponents of mark-to-market accounting say that the rule is critical for transparency. That bank balance sheets are complicated enough, and to allow banks to have more freedom in the value they assign these hard-to-trade assets will only make their finances harder to understand. According to the WSJ, if banks have more discretion to value these illiquid assets, more institutions will likely want to keep them on their books. But the emphasis of the Treasury's toxic asset plan is to rid the bank of these assets. "There is no clear definition of what a toxic asset is," said Christopher Hoeffel, president of the Commercial Mortgage Securities Association. "Some bankers are saying, 'I don't want to sell these assets, because the loan might still be good -- and if I hold it to maturity, I might get my money back.'" That seems to run counter to the Treasury plan, which could spend up to $1 trillion to remove impaired assets from banks' balance sheets. There is strong Wall Street support for Treasury's program, with some investors advocating a complete cleanup of assets via the Treasury program. On Tuesday, Arianna interviewed House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank on CNBC's Squawk Box on the accounting rule. She called the proposal to allow more bank discretion "watering down." WATCH: More on Video
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)